Robin, I would agree if we had thoroughly reviewed what PIR is doing and had no objections to it. If we have done this, we should issue a formal statement on the PIR actions. In addition, we, non-commercial domain name holders, are also users of other gTLD domains, so the non-.org issues also should be followed by us, of course. fraternal regards --c.a. Robin Gross wrote: > Colleagues, > > There has been some discussion here in New Delhi that perhaps the best approach > for curtailing domain name tasting is through private sector action, rather than > GNSO action. Considering the approach of PIR, Affilias and Neustar, etc to try > to deal with tasting, it may not be necessary (even duplicative) for GNSO to > take action. On the other side however, some registries may never be willing > to curtail the practice since they profit from it, and so GNSO policy is necessary. > > I'd be curious to hear what NCUC members think about this issue. > > Thank you, > Robin > > > Begin forwarded message: > >> *From: *Robin Gross <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >> *Date: *February 10, 2008 2:50:05 AM PST >> *To: *[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> *Subject: **Fwd: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council >> Motion* >> >> Hi there NCUC'ers, >> >> Below is a proposed motion from a very small ad hoc group to curtail Domain >> Name Tasting. The motion below hasn't formally been made and will NOT be >> voted on this week in New Delhi, but Council will discuss the motion during >> our meeting on Wednesday. So I'm really keen to hear what members of the >> constituency think about how to handle domain name tasting. >> >> Some on Council were a bit uncomfortable that the group came back to council >> with a "solution to the problem" instead of coming back with a plan for how >> the GNSO should work through the issue together. Some on council feel a bit >> more discussion should happen (not many months, but perhaps a few weeks). >> Perhaps a better solution for DNT should be proposed than what is below? Or >> perhaps the solution below is the right approach? I'd appreciate it if we >> could discuss this during the constituency call on Tuesday >> (see http://ncuc.webexone.com for details on how to participate in the call). >> Also, since some of us won't be able to participate on the NCUC call given >> the time zone differences, we should also discuss the issue on the list here. >> Thoughts? >> >> Thank you, >> Robin >> >> >> >> Begin forwarded message: >> >>> *From: *"Rosette, Kristina" <[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> *Date: *February 6, 2008 7:31:11 PM PST >>> *To: *<[log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]>> >>> *Subject: **[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_ >>> <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf> >>> and has acknowledged the _Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain >>> Tasting_ >>> <http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>; >>> >>> 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>> >>> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >> > >> > >> > >> > IP JUSTICE >> > Robin Gross, Executive Director >> > 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> > p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> > w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] >> > <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> > >> > >> > >> >> >> >> >> IP JUSTICE >> Robin Gross, Executive Director >> 1192 Haight Street, San Francisco, CA 94117 USA >> p: +1-415-553-6261 f: +1-415-462-6451 >> w: http://www.ipjustice.org e: [log in to unmask] <mailto:[log in to unmask]> >> >> >>