<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion
- To: <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion
- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2008 20:49:09 -0500
Like the deletes language.
Unfortunately, there is no Consensus Policy that prohibits speculative
registrations. There is language that says prohibitions on warehousing and
speculation could be an area of Consensus Policy.
Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
voice: 202-662-5173
direct fax: 202-778-5173
main fax: 202-662-6291
e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: Rosette, Kristina; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Feb 06 20:02:29 2008
Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] Draft Motion
How about this (just about to leave for gate...)
Whereas Speculative registration of domains by registrars is prohibited under
[insert reference] and registrations which are deleted during the AGP in excess
of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, are indicative of
speculative registrations.
....
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, a the end of the month Registry shall debit
the Registrar’s account for the full value of the
domain name registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshold 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. 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.
Alan
At 06/02/2008 07:35 PM, Rosette, Kristina wrote:
Can you please post tonight some revised language? Otherwise, we (a)
go with what we have and work on it on Saturday or (b) we lose our chance to
get this to a vote next week.
K
Kristina Rosette
Covington & Burling LLP
1201 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20004-2401
voice: 202-662-5173
direct fax: 202-778-5173
main fax: 202-662-6291
e-mail: krosette@xxxxxxx
This message is from a law firm and may contain information that is
confidential or legally privileged. If you are not the intended recipient,
please immediately advise the sender by reply e-mail that this message has been
inadvertently transmitted to you and delete this e-mail from your system.
Thank you for your cooperation.
-------------------------
Sent from my Wireless Handheld
----- Original Message -----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx <owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wed Feb 06 19:17:41 2008
Subject: 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
<mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> < mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx <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
How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at
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
How am I doing? Please contact my direct
supervisor at 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 Issues Report on Domain Tasting <
http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf>
<http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14jun07.pdf%3E%A0>
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
<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 [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 Deletesâ€); 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>>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|