Re: [gnso-consumercci-dt] DomainIncite: "How many defensive registrations is too many?"

[Rosemary Sinclair <rosemary.sinclair@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Steve

Do you want to let Kevin know...

Cheers, R

Rosemary Sinclair
Director, External Relations
Australian School of Business
UNSW
+61 413 734490

On 25/02/2012, at 8:30 AM, "Berry Cobb" 
<mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:

Team,

The typo within the final draft is updated on the public comment page.

Thank you.  B

Berry Cobb
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers (ICANN)
720.839.5735
mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:mail@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
@berrycobb


From: 
owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx<mailto:owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx> 
[mailto:owner-gnso-consumercci-dt@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Steve DelBianco
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 11:25
To: Consumer CCI DT
Subject: [gnso-consumercci-dt] DomainIncite: "How many defensive registrations 
is too many?"

Tow items for the working group.

First, we mis-stated the target for our first item on page 10, where we said 
"Post-Sunrise Registrations > 15%".   This error was politely pointed-out by 
two reporters today: Kevin Murphy 
(DomainIncite<http://domainincite.com/how-many-defensive-registrations-is-too-many/%20>)
 and Amy Bivins (BNA).

I told both of them that this was a typo, and should shave read: "Post-Sunrise 
Registrations > 85% of total registrations"

I am sure this isn't the only typo in our document, but it is a critical one 
since there is keen interest in defensive registration measures.

So I hope that Berry can update the ICANN website today with a corrected 
document.

Second, Kevin Murphy asked a follow-up question about timing and targets.  I 
answered for myself— not the working group.  But I wanted you to see the answer 
I gave (below).   Comments welcome.

-Steve

From: Steve DelBianco 
<<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 13:08:28 -0500
To: 
<<mailto:kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: Re: [DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion] Comment: "How many 
defensive registrations is too many?"

Good question, Kevin.

The first year is important, mainly because the Affirmation review team is 
supposed to begin its work after year one.  Para 3.  Para 9.3 reads
"If and when new gTLDs (whether in ASCII or other language character sets) have 
been in operation for one year, ICANN will organize a review that will examine 
the extent to which the introduction or expansion of gTLDs has promoted 
competition, consumer trust and consumer choice…"

But it makes no sense to measure this expansion program against firm targets at 
the end of year one.  At that point, second and third batch gTLDs will have 
only a few months of uptime.  And even the first batch will still be going 
through growing pains and building market share.

Perhaps that's why the board resolution didn't ask for first or second year 
targets, and we were glad to focus just on year 3, when all the new gTLDs would 
have had time to build registrations.  That also leaves time for some new gTLDs 
to have failed or gone fallow, which is natural for a market-driven adoption 
process.

So, let's assume the AoC review begins one year after the first batch of new 
gTLDs have been in operation.   It will take a month or two to select the 
review team.  Then a month or two to define their charter and put that up for 
public comment.  If, as I hope, the review team selects measures that we 
recommended in our draft advice, then ICANN may already be collecting much of 
the data needed.  On the other hand, newly defined measures would require new 
data gathering.

Suffice to say that this review won't finish until most new gTLDs have been in 
operation for one to two years.

If the review team embraces our measures and 3-year targets, they could adjust 
our 3-year targets to apply to a 1.5 or 2-year period.

So I don't believe our work, or that of the AoC review team, should cause a 
deferral of the second round of new gTLD applications.

--
Steve

From: 
<<mailto:kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2012 10:24:06 -0700
To: Steve DelBianco 
<<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:sdelbianco@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Subject: RE: [DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion] Comment: "How many 
defensive registrations is too many?"

Thanks for your comment Steve.

One thing I'm not totally clear on -- maybe I'm just missing something-- is 
what ICANN is supposed to measure after year one.

I realize the board resolution you were working to asked for three-year 
targets, but the first-year ones seem pretty important too, given that there's 
an open question (as I understand it) about whether this AoC review has to 
happen before the second round begins.

Any ideas?

Cheers,

Kevin

Kevin Murphy
DomainIncite
+44 7504 603644
Twitter: @DomainIncite
Skype: DomainIncite
Facebook: <http://facebook.com/domainincite> 
facebook.com/domainincite<http://facebook.com/domainincite>


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [DomainIncite - Domain Name News & Opinion] Comment: "How many
defensive registrations is too many?"
From: Steve DelBianco 
<<mailto:wordpress@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>wordpress@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:wordpress@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>>
Date: Fri, February 24, 2012 5:03 pm
To: <mailto:kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 
kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:kevin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

Kevin,

Thanks for the objective report on our draft advice.

And you're right about the typo on page 10.  the 3-year target should be 
"Post-Sunrise Registrations > 85% of total registrations"
You can see all comments on this post here:
<http://domainincite.com/how-many-defensive-registrations-is-too-many/#comments>http://domainincite.com/how-many-defensive-registrations-is-too-many/#comments