Thanks, Mike. Much appreciated that you led on this issue I would probably like to see the reporting continue, as a safeguard, but perhaps less frequently. I note that it may be because there is visible reporting that the behavior is dropping off. Others who have been affected negatively by the practice may have other thoughts to add in here. Marilyn Cade From: icann@rodenbaugh.com To: bc-gnso@icann.org Subject: [bc-gnso] FW: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 07:38:20 -0800 Message bodySharing some further info I got from ICANN Staff in response to some inquiries I made upon seeing this “Alert”. Happy to hear any comments, but in sum I do not think there is any more to do on this issue and ICANN Staff can stop their reporting on it at this point. Best,mike Mike RodenbaughRODENBAUGH LAWtel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087http://rodenbaugh.com From: Craig Schwartz [mailto:craig.schwartz@icann.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 24, 2010 8:19 AM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Cc: 'Rosette, Kristina' Subject: RE: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Hi Mike, I hope you find the following information helpful as a follow-up to your question about blatant tasting. Here are some data points and comments: - June 2008 there were 15,738,292 AGP deletes in .COM vs. June 2010 that saw 41,798 = 99.8% decrease- June 2008 there were 1,860,164 AGP deletes in .NET vs. June 2010 that saw 5,951 = 99.7% decrease- June 2008 there were 1,409 AGP deletes in .BIZ vs. June 2010 that saw 850 = 40% decrease- June 2008 there were 35,052 AGP deletes in .ORG vs. June 2010 that saw 2,908 = 91.8% decrease- July 2008 there were 18,945 AGP deletes in .INFO vs. July 2010 that saw 8,887 = 53.1% decrease (Note: I used July rather than June as in June 2010 there were an unusually high number of AGP deletes (far beyond the 2010 average monthly figure of ~6k) that were identified in an AGP Exemption Request from one registrar. That information was presented in the report recently provided to the GSNO and shared with the community.) A particularly interesting statistic is to share with you is that the six registrars with the highest number of AGP deletes in June 2008 (for .COM and .NET combined) totaled 17,598,476 AGP deletes or roughly 59% of all AGP deletes for that month. In contrast, those six registrars reported AGP deletes in June 2010 (for .COM and .NET combined) of 1,544 or roughly 2.2% of all AGP deletes for that month. Clearly for at least those registrars their business practices have changed in response to the AGP Limits Policy. Further and in order to assess if there continues to be blatant tasting by some registrars, it would be necessary to identify the number of AGP deletes that resulted in an excess deletion fee compared to the total number of AGP deletes for a particular registrar per month across all the TLDs they are accredited to distribute. However, given the overall decline of 99.7% of AGP deletes, it’s unclear what the benefit of additional work would be relative to the costs of extracting that information and what this would really tell us. Lastly and as you noted in your 22 November 2010 email, there are cases where some registrars are deleting, outside of the AGP, a significant number of the names they added. What could be inferred from this is that they’re testing the marketability of these names and ultimately deciding to delete them. However, since these registrars have paid for the names, this doesn’t fit the definition of “domain tasting.” As always, I’m available to answer any questions you or the GNSO may have about the implementation of the AGP Limits Policy. Take care and have a good holiday weekend. Best, Craig SchwartzChief gTLD Registry LiaisonICANN From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann@rodenbaugh.com] Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2010 11:59 AM To: Craig Schwartz Cc: 'Rosette, Kristina' Subject: FW: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy Craig, I recall that early on in implementation of this policy, there was still some blatant tasting activity centered at a few registrars. I wonder if that is still so obviously happening, or not. Do you know where the ‘Per-Registrar Activity Reports’ are for Verisign? They are referenced in the recent Registry Operator Monthly Reports (http://icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/) as ‘provided under separate cover’, but are not found from a quick search or near proximity on the ICANN site, or link from the Monthly Report. They recently had been provided directly within the monthly reports, I thought? Anyway I would appreciate help locating them. Thanks,Mike Mike RodenbaughRODENBAUGH LAWtel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087http://rodenbaugh.com From: ICANN News Alert [mailto:communications@icann.org] Sent: Friday, November 19, 2010 5:38 PM To: icann@rodenbaugh.com Subject: ICANN News Alert -- ICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus Policy News Alerthttp://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-19nov10-en.htmICANN Community Declares Success of AGP Limits Consensus PolicyProposed Final Status Report to the GNSO Council on AGP Limits Policy Implementation19 November 2010The Add Grace Period (AGP) Limits Policy, implemented on 1 April 2009, resulted in a 99.7% decrease in AGP deletes and illustrates the success of ICANN’s consensus-driven, bottom-up policy development process. Community members identified a problem, initiated policy discussions, and generated a solution that has produced effective and sustained results.ICANN today is posting its fourth and proposed final status report to the GNSO on the implementation of AGP Limits Policy. This report presents ICANN’s experience implementing the Policy, provides statistical information on net new registrations, AGP deletes, the percent of names deleted during the AGP for each TLD, and the disposition of exemption requests for the period.ICANN committed to analyzing and reporting on the effects of the Policy to the GNSO at six-month intervals for two years after its implementation. The first status report was issued on 10 June 2009, the second status report on 14 December 2009, and the third status report on 1 June 2010. The purpose of these reports is “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.” On 10 June 2010, the GSNO Council discussed whether additional Policy work was necessary based upon the results of the implementation and whether the reporting requirement should be amended or eliminated. At that meeting the GNSO Council determined that the successful outcomes from the Policy did not warrant additional work at that time and that staff should continue its reporting requirement through the end of the two-year cycle. The publication of this fourth and proposed final report fulfills this reporting requirement to the GNSO. This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann@rodenbaugh.com. It was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA 90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.Email Marketing by Manage your subscription