RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

All,

Just wanted to explain a little bit about how this motion came about, as
the Councilor on the team that drafted the GNSO motion. I'm not
addressing any arguments from the list directly here, just explaining.
But the comments and arguments being made are certainly helpful.

The team was originally charged with coming up with next steps for the
Tasting PDP. After some discussion, it was clear that the only logical
next step seemed to recommend something specifically for the Council to
deliberate. It was clear that Registrars and likely Registries would not
support elimination of the AGP. It was also noted that the FY09 ICANN
budget was proposing to not refund the ICANN fee during the AGP. Also,
Neustar posted its funnel request and it was known that Afilias' would
be following suit.

So, to make a long story short, the recommendation was drafted to mimic
Neustar's (and likely Aflias', although not seen yet at time) funnel
request as closely as possible. The original threshold was 5% but a few
of us objected to that suggested it should at least be the 10% that
Neustar was proposing. So that was included but noted that the team did
not reach agreement on that point.

My personal view - I support the recommendation because I feel it would
be better to try to have a consistent mechanism to implement instead of
possible numerous different variations that registries may implement. I
appreciate the effort that Neustar and Afilias have gone to in their
desire to address this, and it is certainly better than no action at
all. However, if possible, I'd prefer something consistent especially
considering the possibility of dozens more registries coming on line in
the future. It is also much preferred to elimination of the AGP, that
some constituencies would support. And, if the motion becomes consensus
policy (at whatever threshold) I don't think the ICANN fee for AGP
deletes would be necessary.

As a Registrar Councilor, I'll do my best to take all concerns to the
Council as this is deliberated and to support the view of the
constituency as a whole.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team
Proposed GNSO Council Motion
From: "Bruce Tonkin" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, February 08, 2008 11:47 pm
To: "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

 
Hello Jeff,
 
I also suspect that the level of fraud may vary by business model and
geographic location of the registrar.
 
Regards,
Bruce Tonkin
 
 


From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus
Sent: Friday, 8 February 2008 8:10 PM
To: Thomas Keller; registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Adrian Kinderis
Subject: RE: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team
Proposed GNSO Council Motion




Tom,
 
I would like to address your question on how other registrars besides
GoDaddy, could have such a large percentage. The answer is simple
division. 
 
You need to look at the gross numbers, not the percentages. If GoDaddy
has 500,000 net adds per month and is subject to fraud, charge backs or
other items in the amount of 10,000 domains that they need to return
during the AGP that would lead to a 2% return figure.
 
If another registrar that you mentioned has the half the fraud the
GoDaddy has, maybe 5,000 domains in a given month, but only has 50,000
net adds per month then their percentage of returns is much higher, even
though they are suffering less fraud or other returns than GoDaddy. Part
of the issue here is that when there are fraud or other attacks against
registrars they do not discriminate and say,  I will try to add 10,000
domains at Registrar X because they have 10M names under management and
only try to try Register 5,000 names at Registrar Y because they only
have 3M names under management.  I do not believe that level of
discrimination exists.
 
 
The other item logic that I think you need to look at as far as size and
scope and using GoDaddy to compare to the other registrars. Are you
looking at the size as compared to domains under management or net new
adds in the past year. Many of the other registrars you mentioned have
customers, such as Register.com have a mix of new registrations and long
term customers who have purchased 10 year registrations, so while the
number of domains under management may be high, the net new adds may not
be changing as the size of other newer registrars.
 
I think we as Registrars need to take into account all the scenarios
that can exists and think about what the end goals is here without
punishing ourselves. 
 
If we had a 15% threshold, do you believe that tasting would come back
in full force and be an issue that needs to be resolved? The tasters
were returning 90% + of the domains they registered, not in the 5-20%
range. 
 
 I think we should look at what is the number we can allow ourselves
under the AGP that will encompass all of the Registrar needs and still
address Name Tasting. Not punish ourselves and say, how low can we go on
this number.
 
I hope other Registrars and the Council take this into account in their
discussions this weekend
 
 
Thanks
 
 
Jeff
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Thomas Keller
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2008 5:57 AM
To: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [registrars] WG: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed
GNSO Council Motion

 
 
Hello,
 
please find below  the draft council recommendation to the board in
regard to domain tasting, that will be discussed and voted upon at the
Delhi meeting. Guidance on how to vote would be appreciated. It would be
my personal recommendation, even thought that normally the rc reps vote
unanimously, to split our votes (2 in favor 1 against) to reflect the
divers views and their level of support as indicated by the last poll.
 
Best,
 
tom
 

Von: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
Im Auftrag von Rosette, Kristina
Gesendet: Donnerstag, 7. Februar 2008 04:31
An: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Betreff: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council
Motion
All, 
Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by
the domain tasting design team. 
Some comments may be helpful. 
1.  The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that,
because of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose
further work.  Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for
the Council to recommend a policy to the Board.  
2.  The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP --
is the subject of unanimous agreement. 
3.  The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of
unanimous agreement.  More specifically: 
        a.      Two members of the team are not committed to the 10%
threshold and would prefer a lower percentage.  I am one of them.  I
calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as
percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc.,
Tucows, Register.com, and Network Solutions.  GoDaddy's average
percentage was less than 2%.  As a result of that review, I have
questions as to why a 10% limit is appropriate if the largest registrar
in .com (by a factor of at least 2) has a less than 2% deletion rate. It
would be helpful to me if someone could provide on Saturday a general
explanation as to why the registrars smaller than GoDaddy had larger
percentages (some more than 5 times as high).  
        b.      One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the
resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes
being, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in
domain registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause.
4.  It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on
Saturday.  
Kristina 
-*- 
Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 
6 February 2008 
 
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain
Tasting and has acknowledged the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc
group on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on
Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections
to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP;
Whereas, the Board of Directors resolved on 23 January 2008 to encourage
ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added,
including domains added during the AGP, and encouraged community
discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both
Board approval and registrar approval of this fee;
Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Final Report on Domain
Tasting [final title tbd]; 
Whereas, the By-Laws require the GNSO Council Chair to call, within ten
(10) days of receipt of the Final Report, for a formal Council meeting
in which the Council will work towards achieving a Supermajority Vote to
present to the Board;
Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges both that some stakeholders have
advocated the elimination of the AGP as a means to combat the abuse of
it and that other stakeholders have advocated the retention of the AGP
as a means to pursue legitimate, non-abusive uses of it;
Whereas, the GNSO Council welcomes the Board of Directors' 23 January
2008 resolution pertaining to inclusion of fees for all domain names
added, and wishes to recommend to the Board of Directors a Consensus
Policy to address the abuses of the AGP and to maintain the availability
of the AGP for legitimate, non-abusive uses;
Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry
Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz
registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking
amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the
existing AGP;
Therefore, the GNSO Council resolves as follows:
1.  To recommend to the Board of Directors that it adopt a Consensus
Policy to (i) restrict applicability of the AGP to a maximum of 50
deletes per registrar per month or [10%] of that registrar's net new
monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater; [and (ii) deem
a registrar's deletes in excess of this maximum to be indicative of,
barring exceptional circumstances, speculative registrations;] while
(iii) not intending to prohibit a registry the flexibility of proposing
more restrictive excess deletion rules. 
2.  To suggest to the Board of Directors that the Consensus Policy may
be implemented by amending Section 3.1.1 to Appendix 7 of each Registry
Agreement to read as follows:
Delete:  If a domain is deleted within the Add Grace Period, the
sponsoring Registrar at the time of the deletion is credited for the
amount of the registration; provided, however, at the end of the month
the Registry shall debit the Registrar's account for the full value of
the domain name registrations that exceeded the month's set threshhold
of 50 deletes per month or [10%] of that sponsoring Registrar's net new
monthly domain name registrations, whichever is greater ("Usual
Deletes"); and further provided, however, that the Registry Operator
shall have the right to propose more restrictive rules for deletes in
excess of Usual Deletes during the Add Grace Period.  [Deletes in excess
of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of
speculative registrations.]  The domain is deleted from the Registry
database and is immediately available for registration by any Registrar.
See Section 3.2 for a description of overlapping grace period
exceptions. 
<<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on
02-06-08 21_53.DOC>>