I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. The motion is appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely). It was supported by all constituencies except 2 of the 3 Registrar members. The Registrar Constituency had proposed an alternative motion wherein the Board budget measure of charging the $0.20 for all new domains (including those deleted under the AGP) should be implemented first, and the original motion (the one that passed) only apply if the budget action proved unsuccessful. Alan ======== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the 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; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.
Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. Alan, you deserve special credit for helping to move this through, and to help advance an outcome that accomplishes much of what was desired within At-Large. Given that ALAC requested the PDP, I guess it could be argued that this is the first instance of ICANN reacting positively to an At-Large initiative that might not have even been on its agenda otherwise. As such, perhaps this can be considered something of a milestone in the evolving maturity of ALAC.
(We'll talk about tactics for total elimination of the AGP ... later :-) ) - Evan
Excellent news, and great work Alan! Good that ALAC's first issues report request has moved to such a successful conclusion. It's way tougher than I though we were going to get, I'm sure due in no small part to your huge amount of work on this. Jacqueline Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. The motion is appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely).
It was supported by all constituencies except 2 of the 3 Registrar members. The Registrar Constituency had proposed an alternative motion wherein the Board budget measure of charging the $0.20 for all new domains (including those deleted under the AGP) should be implemented first, and the original motion (the one that passed) only apply if the budget action proved unsuccessful.
Alan
========
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the 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;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");
Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;
The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:
1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.
2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;
a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,
b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
Excellent. Alan, I know you have put a lot of work on this, congtaulations José Ovidio Salgueiro A. jsalgueiro@cantv.net ----- Original Message ----- From: Jacqueline A. Morris To: Alan Greenberg Cc: At-Large Sent: Saturday, April 19, 2008 12:15 PM Subject: Re: [At-Large] GNSO action on Domain Tasting Excellent news, and great work Alan! Good that ALAC's first issues report request has moved to such a successful conclusion. It's way tougher than I though we were going to get, I'm sure due in no small part to your huge amount of work on this. Jacqueline Alan Greenberg wrote:
I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. The motion is appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely).
It was supported by all constituencies except 2 of the 3 Registrar members. The Registrar Constituency had proposed an alternative motion wherein the Board budget measure of charging the $0.20 for all new domains (including those deleted under the AGP) should be implemented first, and the original motion (the one that passed) only apply if the budget action proved unsuccessful.
Alan
========
Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the 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;
Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting");
Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting;
Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP;
The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that:
1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator:
a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater.
b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary.
c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator.
2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically;
a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining;
i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and
ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages,
b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff.
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely).
Congrats. This is actually quite a reasonable outcome. Do we know when the board must adopt it? History suggests that they will drag their feet as long as they can. R's, John
Evan, Jacqueline, John, Veronica and José, Thanks for the kind words. It was a lot of work and I take some pride in being part of it, but the effort involved a great cooperative effort from a number of people, including those from the Registrar and Registry Constituencies who were made out to be the devils during a lot of this process. And I have to note that the Registry Constituency, which strongly objected to the process followed by the GNSO group that drafted and presented this motion, ultimately supported the motion based on its merits (with all three of its votes). See below regarding John's question. At 19/04/2008 12:54 PM, John L wrote:
appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely).
Congrats. This is actually quite a reasonable outcome.
Do we know when the board must adopt it? History suggests that they will drag their feet as long as they can.
Well, I don't have the history with ICANN that you do, but a lot of GNSO and ICANN staff folks moved heaven and earth (for non-English speakers, see http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/move+heaven+and+earth) to get this motion passed in sufficient time to get it to the Board for their June meeting in Paris. And I have no doubt that Wendy will do what she can to be sure it happens. Alan
Alan Greenberg wrote:
the effort involved a great cooperative effort from a number of people, including those from the Registrar and Registry Constituencies who were made out to be the devils during a lot of this process.
The Registrars still earned their hellish standing, holding out to the very end and preventing a consensus decision in the face of widespread approval. They certainly were never on the side of doing the right thing and I fail to see how they contributed to the "cooperative effort" that saw the measure pass. As for Registries... judgment is reserved. They fought the process to right near the end but supported it at the last moment. This suggests a politically motivated change rather than one based on principle. Still, in the end a yes vote counts regardless of why it was cast, so this must be seen as a positive. - Evan
Evan, you are of course entitled to that opinion. As someone who has participated in the entire process over the last twelve months (pretty much to the day as it turned out), I do not share it. For the record, I did not say that every Registry and every Registrar were on board. I said that a number of people from those constituencies worked hard for this outcome. Alan At 19/04/2008 05:06 PM, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Alan Greenberg wrote:
the effort involved a great cooperative effort from a number of people, including those from the Registrar and Registry Constituencies who were made out to be the devils during a lot of this process.
The Registrars still earned their hellish standing, holding out to the very end and preventing a consensus decision in the face of widespread approval. They certainly were never on the side of doing the right thing and I fail to see how they contributed to the "cooperative effort" that saw the measure pass.
As for Registries... judgment is reserved. They fought the process to right near the end but supported it at the last moment. This suggests a politically motivated change rather than one based on principle. Still, in the end a yes vote counts regardless of why it was cast, so this must be seen as a positive.
- Evan
John:
Do we know when the board must adopt it? History suggests that they will drag their feet as long as they can.
Maybe. For the time being, I can tell you that there has been an ExCom this evening to set the agenda for the next Board teleconference, and I requested to add this item to the agenda. The Board teleconference is scheduled for Wednesday, 30 April @ 03:00 UTC (yes, 3.00 am). However, it might well be that the matter has to go out for public comments before the Board makes a decision. Cheers, Roberto
If I recall correctly, the timing of the motion presumed that this was the case and allowed for it. Assuming that the call for comments is done in a timely manner. The June Board meeting is two months away. Of course, if the Board would like to ratify the GNSO vote before that, they are welcome to. ;-) Alan At 19/04/2008 05:44 PM, Roberto Gaetano wrote:
However, it might well be that the matter has to go out for public comments before the Board makes a decision.
Thanks for the news! Congratulations and well-done, Alan! A great weekend ahead for everyone, Veronica -----Original Message----- From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> To: At-Large <alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2008 08:58:38 -0400 Subject: [At-Large] GNSO action on Domain Tasting I am pleased to report that at its meeting last Thursday, the GNSO passed a motion that will eliminate the massive usage of the Add Grace Period (AGP) that has enabled domain tasting. The motion is appended below. It was passed with a supermajority (greater than 2/3), so the Board must adopt it as a Consensus Policy unless a supermajority of the Board oppose it (highly unlikely). It was supported by all constituencies except 2 of the 3 Registrar members. The Registrar Constituency had proposed an alternative motion wherein the Board budget measure of charging the $0.20 for all new domains (including those deleted under the AGP) should be implemented first, and the original motion (the one that passed) only apply if the budget action proved unsuccessful. Alan ======== Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the 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; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the GNSO Council has received the Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting; Whereas, PIR, the .org registry operator, has amended its Registry Agreement to charge an Excess Deletion Fee; and both NeuStar, the .biz registry operator, and Afilias, the .info registry operator, are seeking amendments to their respective Registry Agreements to modify the existing AGP; The GNSO Council recommends to the ICANN Board of Directors that: 1. The applicability of the Add Grace Period shall be restricted for any gTLD which has implemented an AGP ("Applicable gTLD Operator"). Specifically, for each Applicable gTLD Operator: a. During any given month, an Applicable gTLD Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new registrations in that month (defined as total new registrations less domains deleted during AGP), or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever is greater. b. A Registrar may seek an exemption from the application of such restriction in a specific month, upon the documented showing of extraordinary circumstances. For any Registrar requesting such an exemption, the Registrar must confirm in writing to the Registry Operator how, at the time the names were deleted, these extraordinary circumstances were not known, reasonably could not have been known, and were outside of the Registrar's control. Acceptance of any exemption will be at the sole reasonable discretion of the Registry Operator, however "extraordinary circumstances" which reoccur regularly will not be deemed extraordinary. c. In addition to all other reporting requirements to ICANN, each Applicable gTLD Operator shall identify each Registrar that has sought an exemption, along with a brief descriptive identification of the type of extraordinary circumstance and the action (if any) that was taken by the Applicable gTLD Operator. 2. Implementation and execution of these recommendations shall be monitored by the GNSO. Specifically; a. ICANN Staff shall analyze and report to the GNSO at six month intervals for two years after implementation, until such time as the GNSO resolves otherwise, with the goal of determining; i. How effectively and to what extent the policies have been implemented and followed by Registries and Registrars, and ii. Whether or not modifications to these policies should be considered by the GNSO as a result of the experiences gained during the implementation and monitoring stages, b. The purpose of these monitoring and reporting requirements are to allow the GNSO to determine when, if ever, these recommendations and any ensuing policy require additional clarification or attention based on the results of the reports prepared by ICANN Staff. _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org [http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org] At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org [http://atlarge.icann.org/]
participants (8)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jacqueline A. Morris -
John L -
John Levine
-
Josè Ovidio Salgueiro A. -
Roberto Gaetano -
Veronica Cretu