RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Thanks, Mike.

They are intended b/c they're currently the last two sentences in the current 
language (at least as reflected in .com and .biz, which is what I looked at 
last night).  Maybe a new paragraph or move earlier?  No preference on this 
end.  Any suggestions?

5% is noted.  Depending on views of others, I'll either replace or put both 
numbers in brackets. 

Do you have any preference as to whether point 2 of the resolution stays in or 
comes out?  Another option is to bracket . .. 

Anyone else?

K  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 1:57 PM
To: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion


Thx Kristina!  Were the last two sentences of the motion intended?  They seem 
out of place.

The stats are compelling, suggesting that 10 percent may not make much impact.  
So I support stating 5 percent in the motion.

Best,
Mike

-----Original Message-----
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>

Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 11:08:23
To:"Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion


All, 
  
I agree with Tim's suggested edits and have attached a revised clean version of 
the motion.  I also revised the last Whereas clause to indicate that Afilias 
has also sought to amend its Registry Agreement.  
  
As to his point below, I had the same concern while drafting.  I did think it 
was important to have some language out there for Council to review.  I 
ultimately dealt with the concern by using "suggest" instead of "recommend". 
Another iteration could be:  To suggest to the Board of Directors that one 
possible mechanism for implementing the Consensus Policy would be to amend . . 
. . .  Council may ultimately decide to drop that paragraph entirely.  
Personally, I'd rather have something drafted and delete it than not have it 
and have to draft on the fly. 
  
Finally, after our call, I gave some more thought to the 10% threshold.   That 
led me to take a closer look at the Monthly Registry Reports.  I selected five 
registrars (GoDaddy, eNom Inc., Tucows, Network Solutions, and 
Register.com), reviewed their net adds (1 year) and deletes add grace in .com 
over the past 6 months for which the MRRs are posted, and calculated their 
respective percentages of deletes add grace in relation to net adds.   The 
6-month averages were surprising:  GoDaddy - 1.56; eNom, Inc. - 11.33; Tucows - 
12.84; Network Solutions - 13.28; and Register.com - 6.93.  The attached 
document contains the monthly numbers.  
  
As a result of this 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.  I'm left the 10% in the motion, but hope our 
discussion on Saturday will cover this point. 
  
If you have comments or suggested revisions, please post them in the 
next several hours as we need to get something posted to the Council list 
today.  If you have preference as to whether the second point in the resolution 
stays in or goes out, please note that. 
  
Thanks. 
  
K 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
----------------
 From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 06, 2008 3:41 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion

 
 
An additional concern I have is whether or not we should recommend the amending 
of the registry agreement. Would it better to just recommend it as a consensus 
policy that the registies would be required to implement. That's assuming of 
course that it falls within their picket fence. 


Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Direct: 319-329-9804
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@xxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx>  with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the 
addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have 
received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and 
permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its 
attachments.


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion
From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 2:31 am
To: "Rosette,Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Cc: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx

 
Kristina, 
  
My edits in the attached redline, and indicated in red the changes in the copy 
below. I think it is best to just state in general terms that we are not 
intending to prohibit a registry's right to propose more restrictive measures. 
That may include additional fees, a lower allowance, etc. 


Tim Ruiz
Vice President
Corp. Development & Policy
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.
Direct: 319-329-9804
Fax: 480-247-4516
tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> 

How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president@xxxxxxxxxxx 
<mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx>  with any feedback.

This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only by the 
addressee(s) named herein and may contain confidential information. If you have 
received this email in error, please immediately notify the sender and 
permanently delete the original and any copy of this message and its 
attachments.


 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion
From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, February 05, 2008 8:17 pm
To: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

 
All, 
As promised, attached and copied below are a draft motion.  I am happy to 
continue to act as scribe for purposes of revisions, but would be grateful if 
substantive revisions were posted in redline form.  I think we need to aim to 
have a "final" (assuming, of course, that we reach agreement) by tomorrow at 
noon PST. 
Kristina 
-*- 
Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 
5 February 2008 draft 
 
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the  
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>
 Issues Report on Domain Tasting and has acknowledged the  
<http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf>
 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 [will have] 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 NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, is 
seeking an amendment to its Registry Agreement 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, that the number of domains to which such 
credit shall apply shall not exceed 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 spec! 
ulative 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. 
  
<<Draft GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-05-08 21_11.DOC>>