Re: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting

[DotAlliance <helen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree!
This action effects the registrars most strongly and we should present a 
united front!
While the GNSO has worked very hard I do not see that they fully understand 
registrar concerns
If we don't come up with a united front we may well be stuck with the GNSO 
motion.
A small amount say 20 cents above an agreed minimum ..if the previously 
suggested minimun is not sufficient perhaps the greatest of 100 or 15% of 
deletes with the fund going to ICANN (in the hope of reduced fees) or how 
our registrar constituencey association or FOURI (Fund to offset unwarranted 
registry increases?
Registrars should still be able to apply for exemptions but perhaps 
"extraordinary events" as the GNSO suggests is too strong a word as cases of 
fraud, API abuse, hackers, and even registrar errors can occur or any events 
in which the deletions are not as a result of domain tasting are sadly not 
necessarily rare events.
I most strenuoulsy object to paying full fees in the AGP period as it is a 
great deal of work to sort out in the case of a minor overlap.
We also do not want to be in the position of having some registrars 
reluctant to delete/refund registrants for typo due to a run of fraud that 
month.
Since Bhavin has given this process a great deal of thought I would like to 
suggest he word a motion that we can all vote on.
He might want to suggest different possilities on the minimum number of 
forgiveable domain deletions, the amount to pay after this and where the 
funds could go.
Helen

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Registrar Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting


> > Keep in mind that the motion proposes pretty much the same
> > thing as the
> > already approved funnel requests of Neustar and Afilias for .biz and
> > .info. And that the current form of the registry agreements
> I agree. And that was discussed in the last meeting. Several registrars 
> had
> brought this up in the RC meet as well as in the cross constituency meet. 
> I
> remember a heated argument with jeff neumann about the negative 
> implications
> of these funnel requests.
>
> > specifically
> > allows registries to limit the AGP deletes, so funnel requests from
> > other registries are likely to be approved just as quickly. What the
> > motion provides is a more consistent implementation across
> > registries.
> While I am all for consistency, and definitely like the GNSO coming up 
> with
> something that is standardized rather than independent registry funnel
> requests, in this case I think that is not required given the ICANN Board
> proposal. That proposal by itself is consistent and eliminates the need 
> then
> for individual funnel requests OR for a GNSO proposal
>
> > Also, the first step in getting our message across to the
> > Board is with
> > the GNSO vote on this motion. Whether we vote in favor or not
> > we should
> > include an on-the-record statement regarding our views of both the
> > motion and the ICANN fee. See my proposal on the Members list.
> I agree that we need to vote and make a statement. Will send comments on 
> the
> statement on the members list.
>
> bhavin
>
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG.
> Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1372 - Release Date: 
> 10/04/2008 5:36 PM