February 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Copy of Kurt's presentation
by Bruce Tonkin 09 Feb '08

09 Feb '08

Hello All, From: http://www.gnso.icann.org/correspondence/presentation-gnso-new-gtlds-09f eb08.pdf See attached. Regards, Bruce Tonkin

1 0

Has the meeting started?
by Rosette, Kristina 09 Feb '08

09 Feb '08

I'm on the line, but can't hear anything. Thanks. K

1 0

Rob Hoggarth
by Denise Michel 09 Feb '08

09 Feb '08

I am pleased to announce that Rob Hoggarth has joined ICANN's Policy Staff as Senior Policy Director. Rob will be managing key projects and cross-cutting activities that support ICANN's policy development objectives, including initiatives to improve our Supporting Organizations and Advisory Committees. He also will serve as a primary liaison with other departments in ICANN and will provide support, as needed, for policy development initiatives. Rob will report to me and will split his time between his home office in Silver Spring, Maryland and Marina del Rey. Rob has had a distinguished career in technology and communications policy and law, including managing his own private consulting practice for domestic and international clients, serving as a Senior Vice President and General Manager for NTT America, Inc. (Nippon Telegraph and Telephone in the United States), and as a Senior Vice President for the Personal Communications Industry Association (PCIA). He also represented communications companies for a decade as a lawyer in private practice. Rob has written numerous white papers on a wide variety of telecommunications subjects and has organized and participated in conferences and seminars on emerging telecommunications issues and technologies throughout the U.S., Europe and Asia. Please join me in welcoming him to ICANN. He can be reached at < robert.hoggarth(a)icann.org <rob.hoggarth(a)icann.org>>. Regards, Denise Denise Michel ICANN VP, Policy denise.michel(a)icann.org

1 0

Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting
by Olof Nordling 08 Feb '08

08 Feb '08

Dear all, Attached is a Draft Final Report on Domain Tasting, prepared by staff following the public comment period for the Initial Report and incorporating the comments received. I hope you find it useful in the upcoming discussions on this topic. Very best regards Olof PS. And it IS still the 8th of February, even in New Delhi...

1 0

Updated GNSO related events schedule
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 07 Feb '08

07 Feb '08

Dear All, Attached please find the updated schedule. Some of the rooms have been changed. There will be no lunch served on Saturday, but there are a number of places in the hotel to have lunch or a snack. There will be printed copies of the agenda. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Public Comments Requested on DNS Stability: The Effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG 07 Feb '08

07 Feb '08

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org; liaison6c[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: ga[at]gnso.icann.org; announce[at]gnso.icann.org] [To: regional-liaisons[at]icann.org] http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-06feb08.htm Public Comments Requested on DNS Stability: The Effect of New gTLDs on the Internet Domain Name System 6 February 2008 DNS Stability: The Effect of New Generic Top Level Domains on the Internet Domain Name System [PDF, 53K] The ICANN community has recently completed a policy development process regarding the introduction of new generic top-level domains (gTLDs). This effort took place within ICANN’s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) (see http://gnso.icann.org/) and resulted in a set of recommendations (see http://gnso.icann.org/issues/new-gtlds/pdp-dec05-fr-parta-08aug07.htm#_Toc4…) to guide ICANN in introducing new gTLDs to the namespace. In its recommendations, the GNSO concluded that "ICANN must implement a process that allows the introduction of new top-level domains," and called for a procedure respecting the principles of fairness, transparency and non-discrimination. In preparing for the expected implementation of the gTLD policy recommendations, staff is conducting some review and analysis of the technical issues involved in this development. The addition of gTLDs to the namespace is an expansion of the DNS on a potentially large scale, to include many more names at the top level. One of the policy recommendations developed in relation to the introduction of new gTLDs included the requirement that "Strings must not cause any technical instability." ICANN is publishing this paper to solicit informed input on the technical issues relevant to the addition of new gTLDs, and to provide transparency toward how it will interpret and implement this recommendation. The goal is a clear set of rules that will be available to potential new gTLD applicants; so that it is known from the outset what tests will be applied to each application. ICANN is seeking feedback on the proposed approach as a step in its implementation planning for the introduction of new gTLDs. Comments may be submitted to new-gtlds-dns-stability(a)icann.org by March 7 2008. Comments can be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/new-gtlds-dns-stability/. For more information about the New gTLD Program, please go to http://www.icann.org/topics/new-gtld-program.htm. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
by Rosette, Kristina 07 Feb '08

07 Feb '08

Thanks, Tim. I had assumed you supported it, but didn't want to use names without confirmation. To clarify, I am not saying that I can't/won't support 10%. I would like to discuss the reasons for that number. 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(a)cov.com 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: Tim Ruiz <tim(a)godaddy.com> To: Rosette, Kristina Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Thu Feb 07 01:49:10 2008 Subject: RE: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion Kristina, Sorry for not responding to the discussion that ensued after my suggested edits. My only comment is that I would support staying with the 10%. The differences in the delete rates have more to do with business models than anything else. I think that's at least partly why Neustar and Afilias chose the 10%. I also think that the 10% will reduce exception requests for the registries. Not that I would expect they will get a lot of those, but the fewer they get the less disruptive it will be to them and help avoid costs on their end supporting those requests. Finally, from a practical point of view, since that's what both Neustar and Afilias came up with based on the discussions they reported in their funnel requests I think we will get better support for the recommendation in general. Tim Ruiz Vice President Corp. Development & Policy The Go Daddy Group, Inc. Direct: 319-329-9804 Fax: 480-247-4516 tim(a)godaddy.com How am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at president(a)godaddy.com 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: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Wed, February 06, 2008 9:31 pm To: <council(a)gnso.icann.org> All, Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by the domain tasting design team. Some comments may be helpful. 1. The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that, because of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose further work. Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for the Council to recommend a policy to the Board. 2. The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP -- is the subject of unanimous agreement. 3. The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of unanimous agreement. More specifically: a. Two members of the team are not committed to the 10% threshold and would prefer a lower percentage. I am one of them. I calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc., Tucows, Register.com, and Network Solutions. GoDaddy's average percentage was less than 2%. As a result of that 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. It would be helpful to me if someone could provide on Saturday a general explanation as to why the registrars smaller than GoDaddy had larger percentages (some more than 5 times as high). b. One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes being, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in domain registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause. 4. It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on Saturday. Kristina -*- Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 6 February 2008 Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting <http://gnso.icann.org/issues/domain-tasting/gnso-domain-tasting-report-14ju…> 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-fina…> ; 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 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 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; 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, at the end of the month the Registry shall debit the Registrar’s account for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month’s set threshhold 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. [Deletes in excess of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculative 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. <<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53.DOC>>

1 0

Fwd: Agenda for the gNSO and ccNSO njont meeting in New Delhi
by Avri Doria 07 Feb '08

07 Feb '08

Begin forwarded message: > From: "Patrick Sharry" <patrick.sharry(a)ps2.com.au> > Date: 7 February 2008 04:34:57 GMT+01:00 > Subject: Agenda for the gNSO and ccNSO njont meeting in New Delhi > > Dear Avri and Chris > > Thank you for inviting me to facilitate the joint meeting of the > gNSO Council and the ccNSO Council in New Delhi. Having spoken > with both of you, I think that we are in agreement about the agenda: > · Welcome, expectations, brief context (Patrick) > · Brief explanation of the GNSO letter and its intents; > questions and brief discussion to clarify matters (Avri and Patrick) > · Brief explanation of the ccNSO letter and it intents; > questions and brief discussion to clarify matters (Chris and Patrick) > · Facilitated general discussion, focusing on key issues > (Patrick/ All) > · Discussion of how to continue to work together to resolve > issues; agreement on next steps (Patrick/ All) > > Could you please forward this to your respective councils so that > they are aware of what will be happening. > > Regards > > Patrick >

1 0

RE: [council] Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
by Tim Ruiz 07 Feb '08

07 Feb '08

1 0

Domain Tasting Design Team Proposed GNSO Council Motion
by Rosette, Kristina 07 Feb '08

07 Feb '08

All, Attached and copied below is a proposed GNSO Council motion developed by the domain tasting design team. Some comments may be helpful. 1. The design team agreed unanimously during its first meeting that, because of the work done to that point, it did not wish to propose further work. Instead, the team believed that it was appropriate for the Council to recommend a policy to the Board. 2. The general concept of the proposed motion -- to modify the AGP -- is the subject of unanimous agreement. 3. The bracketed language is language that was not the subject of unanimous agreement. More specifically: a. Two members of the team are not committed to the 10% threshold and would prefer a lower percentage. I am one of them. I calculated the six-month average of the AGP delete percentages (as percentages of net adds (1 year)) in .com for GoDaddy, eNom, Inc., Tucows, Register.com, and Network Solutions. GoDaddy's average percentage was less than 2%. As a result of that 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. It would be helpful to me if someone could provide on Saturday a general explanation as to why the registrars smaller than GoDaddy had larger percentages (some more than 5 times as high). b. One member of the team wanted to (i) delete from the resolution and the suggested language the references to excess deletes being, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculation in domain registrations and (ii) move that language into a whereas clause. 4. It is the team's expectation that the motion will be discussed on Saturday. Kristina -*- Domain Tasting Design Team Motion 6 February 2008 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> 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> ; 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 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 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; 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, at the end of the month the Registry shall debit the Registrar's account for the full value of the domain name registrations that exceeded the month's set threshhold 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. [Deletes in excess of Usual Deletes are, barring exceptional circumstances, indicative of speculative 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. <<DT Design team proposed GNSO Council tasting motion - SCRUBBED on 02-06-08 21_53.DOC>>

1 0