RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion
Sorry about the silence. I am in transit to Delhi, but plans have been upset do to snow storm in Chicago.
Several ccomments:- I think that "deeming excessive deleted to be speculative" better fits as a Wheras than in the text of the revised Registry Agreement.
- the wording of the proposed contract revision implies that a registry may only credit AGP deletes for 10% of net adds. That is explicitly NOT what NeuStar and Afilias are asking to do. They are crediting as many AGP deletes as occur. Then at the billing reconciliation time, they will re-bill the excessive number. It makes a big difference as the latter is done after the fact, without any need to know at the instant of the AGP delete if it is excessive or not (which would require system changes, and does not factor in that there may be more adds later in the month which make the delete legit.
Alan At 06/02/2008 11:08 AM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
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 MotionAn 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 <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>tim@xxxxxxxxxxxHow am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at <mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx>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 <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>tim@xxxxxxxxxxxHow am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at <mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx>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 draftWhereas, 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>>