May 2009 - Bc-gnso - lists.icann.org

Implementation of AGP Restriction Policy
by Philip Sheppard May 18, 2009

May 18, 2009

For information Information from ICANN staff on the implementation of the revised Add Grace Period (AGP) policy. The revision was designed to prevent abuse of the AGP by "taste testers". The original AGP was designed to allow for the correction of bona fide user errors. ------------------------------------------------- - An advisory on the implementation of the AGP Limits Policy was made to the community on 17 December 2008, and called for roll-out of the Policy as soon as possible and no later than 31 March 2009 for an effective date of 1 April 2009. - 15 of the 16 gTLD registries are required to implement the Policy since they offer an AGP to their registrars. - 12 of the 15 gTLD registries reported in February 2009 that they will implement the Policy effective 1 April 2009. - 3 of the 15 gTLD registries (.MOBI, .ASIA and .AERO) requested a one-month extension and have provided notice that they will implement the Policy effective 1 May 2009. - The new reporting requirements of the Policy are due to be reflected for the 12 gTLD registries in the reports they are required to submit by 20 May 2009 for the April reporting period. Monthly registry reports for April 2009 will be publicly available on ICANN's website on or after 1 August 2009 in observance of the three-month confidentiality period for registry reports. The new reporting requirements are: - Number of exemption requests - Number of exemptions granted - Number of names affected by granted exemption request - Number of AGP deletes (domains-deleted-grace) if this information is not currently defined in the Operator's monthly reporting requirement AGP deletes information: - On 13 November 2008, an announcement on the ICANN website reported that AGP deletes had decreased by 84% (17.6 million to 2.8 million) from the period June 2008 to July 2008 following implementation of the ICANN Board approved AGP Budget Provision. This provision called for an assessment of the registrar-level transaction fee, US$0.20 at that time, for all AGP deletes that exceed the threshold defined in provision. The threshold of this provision, and that of the AGP Limits Policy, is 10% of the net adds for the month or 50 whichever is greater. - The AGP Budget Provision is due to expire on 30 June 2009 at the conclusion of ICANN's fiscal year. - For the period July 2008 through January 2009, the average monthly AGP deletes figure is 2.8 million. _______________________ Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN

1 0

GNSO Council letter to GAC
by Philip Sheppard May 18, 2009

May 18, 2009

Colleagues, thank you for your input last week. As expected there was a variety of opinion within the BC. Accordingly an abstention has been recorded. Philip -------------------- Attached is the final version of the letter and below the cover note sent from Council to the GAC. -----Original Message----- Dear Janis, Attached please find a letter from the GNSO Council written in response to your open letter of April 24 2009 to the ICANN CEO. This communication has been approved by the GNSO Council with the noted abstention of the Commercial and Business Constituency, of the Internet Service Providers and Connectivity Providers Constituency, and of Kristina Rosette. Thank you for the opportunity to comment and for accepting our comment at this time. The GNSO Council looks forward to discussing the issue with the GAC at our joint meeting in Sydney. Best Regards, Avri Doria Chair, GNSO Council

1 0

Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Philip Sheppard May 16, 2009

May 16, 2009

Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf The Council response raises issues with which the BC may agree and others with which we may not! We have therefore indicated at this stage a BC abstention. The IPC has done the same. Do let me know if you have any views. Philip

7 8

Pre-Sydney call
by BC Secretariat May 16, 2009

May 16, 2009

Dear Members Please mark Thursday 4 June for a pre-Sydney member call at the usual times. Gary

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Marilyn Cade May 15, 2009

May 15, 2009

I would support an abstention. First, positions like this deserve broader BC discussion, and as noted by Philip, there are items where there may not be membership consensus. Marilyn Cade Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:20:36 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Driven by the Registrars, the Council is considering a letter to the GAC (draft attached) in response to the GAC letter to ICANN CEO. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/karklins-to-twomey-24apr09.pdf> The Council response raises issues with which the BC may agree and others with which we may not! We have therefore indicated at this stage a BC abstention. The IPC has done the same. Do let me know if you have any views. Philip

4 4

Paper on Registry/Registrar separation
by Philip Sheppard May 15, 2009

May 15, 2009

For information - please see the link below. The paper concludes that "The public interest in supporting competition does not support elimination of the current separation of Registry and Registrar ownership. The end result would be further consolidation of the top tier registrars, gaming of the loopholes in the reciprocity provisions which will, in the very least, provide a "time to market" advantage for select Registrars, among others. These changes would, in conclusion, present a severe negative impact on competition among Registries and among Registrars and harm to end users". The BC has I believe not formally changed its view on R/R separation (ie against) but we did presume the issue may be less relevant with the expansion of new TLDs and may be competition enhancing for smaller players. This paper argues (to my mind) persuasively against that presumption. Philip ________________________________ FYI. Enclosed is a paper produced by PIR, NeuStar and Afilias on the Registry-Registrar separation issue which reflects the dangers of the removal of the separation requirements. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/raad-to-dengate-thrush-08may09-en.pdf. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.: NeuStar, Inc. Vice President, Law & Policy

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC
by Marilyn Cade May 14, 2009

May 14, 2009

I disagree, Liz. There are cases where prior rights do exist. We all have to recognize that just like the GNSO reform is highly flawed, although it has been underway even longer, the GTLD policy recommendations have many serious flaws", and inadequacies. I already noted that I would not support the letter, and support abstention. But I respond now because I actually disagree with your point about parties having rights to object. We all have to understand that governments, as sovereign states, do not give up certain responsibilities for public policy irregardless of where they are "working" The .tavel and .info registries launched with reserve list of country names at the second level. I see no reason for that not to provide an approach that is scalable, but there will still have to be an objection process. In my personal view. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Liz Williams <lizawilliams(a)mac.com> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:26:27 To: <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Cc: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: [bc-gnso] Draft GNSO Council letter to the GAC Philip The critical element is that one set of objectors cannot have a power of veto that others do not. An objector cannot also unfairly undermine legitimate which with they may just happen to disagreed. Circumventing a specialised process is exactly what 2.5 years of policy development was supposed to prevent. I support the Council's position. Liz ... Liz Williams +44 1963 364 380 +44 7824 877 757 On 14 May 2009, at 13:20, Philip Sheppard wrote: <GNSO Council to GAC May 2009 V4.doc>

2 1

Re: [bc-gnso] Submission from BC and ISCPC
by Marilyn Cade May 14, 2009

May 14, 2009

As noted from my public comments, I do not support creating "constituencies" for policy issues. The proposed "need" sounds more like a "birds of feather forum" than a constituency IDNs should be a cros cutting policy and standards work program across the GNSO and CcNSO, touching also the SSAC. In general, I didn't support the suggestion that the group fit into a constituency. IDNs nor ASCII TLDs cannot exist in a vacuum from each other. I can support the joint paper. But would give different advice to how to address such cross cutting issues, as noted in my public comments. Sent via BlackBerry by AT&T -----Original Message----- From: Philip Sheppard <philip.sheppard(a)aim.be> Date: Thu, 14 May 2009 12:04:35 To: <bc-gnso(a)icann.org> Subject: [bc-gnso] Submission from BC and ISCPC Thank you for considering an earlier version on the list. Please find attached a response from the Business and ISP Constituencies that has now been submitted to public comments. The IPC may also endorse the paper in due course but have some resourcing issues given their focus on the IRT. Philip

1 0

Submission from BC and ISCPC
by Philip Sheppard May 14, 2009

May 14, 2009

Thank you for considering an earlier version on the list. Please find attached a response from the Business and ISP Constituencies that has now been submitted to public comments. The IPC may also endorse the paper in due course but have some resourcing issues given their focus on the IRT. Philip

1 0

BC position new member outreach
by BC Secretariat May 12, 2009

May 12, 2009

The BC position paper on objectives and milestones for BC new member outreach has now been adopted and is on the web site. Many thanks to our Outreach group for developing the paper. Gary

1 0