RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

My recollection of the discussion and reasoning is pretty the same as
Jeff's and Mike's, with one exception.

Not all thought the ICANN fee needed to be coupled with this policy (if
it does become policy). I for one felt that if this does become policy,
the ICANN fee would only need to apply in a TLD until that registry
implements the policy (I think it was Alan that suggested something like
that). 
 
 
Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft
GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, April 02, 2008 9:53 am
To: <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>, "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>


The purpose of the public comment period, and the updated Constituency
statements, was to see if any new issues would be raised wrt to the
specific
motion proposed by the design team. The design team met yesterday and
discussed the nuances that were raised in those comments and statements.
However there was not consensus, nor even support from more than one
participant, to change the motion as drafted. 

There was consensus that to change the motion would likely introduce
more
delay. Furthermore, there was not consensus to add suggestions from IP
interests because of the consensus belief that the current motion, if
implemented and coupled with the general non-refundability of the 'ICANN
fee' proposed by the Board, would virtually eliminate commercial domain
tasting.

As for the proposals to eliminate the AGP altogether, that is an old
debate,
resolved in favor of the instant motion -- which is a compromise by all
stakeholders, that I feel should be unanimously supported by Council. To
that end, I formally make a motion to adopt the draft motion as set
forth
for public comment, by vote in our April 17 meeting.

Thanks,
Mike Rodenbaugh


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:28 AM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO
Council resolution to curb domain tasting


As you know, Jeff, I specifically focused on the individual comments. I
did not raise *at all* the private sector comments. Call participants
reacted to those individual comments by either stating something to the
effect of "oh, it's just the same persons commenting over and over
again" and "they don't really get how the AGP has all these legitimate
uses that the registrars [included in their PowerPoint]". That
dismissive attitude was and is the basis for my comment.



-----Original Message-----
From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:19 AM
To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO
Council resolution to curb domain tasting

It is no surprise you believe the comments were not given the
consideration warranted since (i) you wrote some of them (or they were
copies of what you wrote) and (ii) the motion does not reflect those
comments. 

Let me state for the record, I do believe the comments were given due
consideration not just yesterday, but in the months of this flawed
process. 

Even before the motion was crafted, it was discussed whether he AGP
should be eliminated. Registries and Registrars believed it should not
and provided evidence as to the necessity of the AGP. This was
discussed also in Dehli over and for the past year before that (even
during the informational gathering stage). The comments asking for
elimination of the AGP from you, INTA (which you wrote), the large
companies (who are all members of INTA), just reiterate subjects already
discussed. And yes, this was raised by certain members of the GA, but
again, this was discussed.

Sorry to be so blunt, but I do not want the Council or to the GA, to be
left with what I personally believe is the wrong impression.

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:58 AM
To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO
Council resolution to curb domain tasting


We didn't talk about providing a summary, but here's my take on it:

It is accurate to say that there was support for not changing the
motion. (I did not agree on several points, but ultimately decided that
it was necessary to agree to disagree given my singular status on these
points.)

Only comments raised by participants were discussed. There was no
systematic effort to track the public comment summary provided by staff.


Comments that Council should define or delineate "exceptional
circumstances" and "regularly" or should instruct Staff to do so in
implementation were not acted upon on the ground that doing so would
cause delay in action on motion and that review period could be relied
upon to disclose abuses.

Comments that "exceptional circumstances" information should be publicly
disclosed were not acted upon on the ground that that information is the
business of only the relevant registry, registrar, and ICANN staff, and
that review period can be relied upon to disclose abuses.

Comments that a timeframe for implementation should be added were not
acted upon on the ground that implementation is beyond scope. There was
general agreement that implementation should occur in a reasonable time.

Extensive discussion about whether Council should include in motion
provision regarding budget mechanism. General agreement that should be
included in motion, but follow on motion may be appropriate. As best I
could determine, I was the only who supported budget mechanism in
addition to policy. 

Out of concern that the team would later be accused of ignoring public
comment, I started a discussion on the fact that a number of comments
had called for elimination of the AGP or indicated that elimination was
the preferred mechanism. My personal view is that these comments were
not given the consideration they warrant. 


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Cc: Council GNSO
Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO
Council resolution to curb domain tasting


Hi,

I am wondering whether the DT is going to go through all the comments
and include an initial response to them in their report to the council
or whether the council itself will approach then raw at the council
meeting. I am fine either way, though I think having the DT do the
first pass a responding to all comments will facilitate the work and
give a better perspective.

I want to make sure that in our deliberations we cover all of the
possibilities and issues mentioned in the public comments, including
those that are not direct comments on the motion before the council or
the proposals before the Registry Services Evaluation Process. I.e. 
we should discuss not only modification to the AGP but must make sure we
cover in our discussions the proposal to eliminate the AGP. We also
need to make sure we understand the implications of the current motion
on the proposal before the Registry Services Evaluation Process and the
Board resolution (2008.01.04) to investigate using ICANN's budgetary
process to control DT through the introduction of fees .


thanks

a.