April 2008 - council - lists.icann.org

Room rate: New gTLD face to face meeting on 10-11 April 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Dear Councilors, The face to face meetings in Los Angeles will take place at the LAX Hilton Hotel in the Carmel room, the same place that the GNSO had for its working sessions during 2007 ICANN meetings in Los Angeles. There is a free shuttle from the airport to the hotel. The rate is 114$ per night. Please contact Stacy Hoffberg <stacy.hoffberg(a)icann.org> for reservations. An earlier start at 08:00 Friday morning has been proposed due to the full agenda. Thank you. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Re: [council] Agenda for New gTLD face to face meeting on 10-11 April 2008
by Rosette, Kristina April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

I would also like clarification as to whether this is purely informative or whether the staff anticipates that Council will be able to provide reaction, guidance, etc. The distinction is very important not only in terms of preparation (including trying to schedule constituency meetings within the next 5 days), but also attendance (especially for those prospective attendees whose travel time is likely to far exceed the actual meeting time). Thanks. K 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: owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org <owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org> To: Karen Lentz <karen.lentz(a)icann.org> Cc: council(a)gnso.icann.org <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Sent: Fri Apr 04 03:00:13 2008 Subject: Re: [council] Agenda for New gTLD face to face meeting on 10-11 April 2008 Hi Karen, Thank you for the agenda. I have some questions: Is this purely an informational session or are there specific issues and questions the council is being asked to react/respond to? As I read the agenda, it seems like an informational session. If I am reading the agenda incorrectly, and there are issues that we need to discuss, I would be grateful if the council could be informed about these as soon as possible. Also I would like to reiterate my request for the implementation notes that we have been requesting, and which were promised to us, as soon as possible. Finally as this agenda was produced by the staff without consultation, I am assuming that the staff is planning to run the meeting. If this is not the case, please let me know. thanks a. On 4 Apr 2008, at 04:48, Karen Lentz wrote: > Dear Councilors, > > Please find attached the expected agenda for the face to face > meeting next week in Los Angeles. We have organized the discussion > according to the GNSO's Terms of Reference, with the approximate > time frames allotted for each. Additional presentation materials > will be distributed prior to the meeting, and these are forthcoming. > > Staff looks forward to a constructive session. Please let us know > if you have additional questions. > > Best regards, > > Karen > > - > > Karen Lentz > The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > 4676 Admiralty Way, No. 330 > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > +1 310 301 5836 office > +1 310 895 3637 mobile > karen.lentz(a)icann.org > <GNSO-gTLDs-Agenda-10-11-apr-08.pdf>

3 2

Agenda for New gTLD face to face meeting on 10-11 April 2008
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Dear Councilors, The face to face meetings in Los Angeles will take place at the LAX Hilton Hotel in the Carmel room, the same place that the GNSO had for its working sessions during 2007 ICANN meetings in Los Angeles. There is a free shuttle from the airport to the hotel. Remote participation on Friday, 11 April 2008 will be available, and details will follow. Please contact me off the list for travel and hotel arrangements if you have not already done so. Thank you. Kind regards Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

2 1

WHOIS Studies Group
by Tim Ruiz April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Besides myself, the following from the RC have volunteered to participate in the WHOIS Studies Group, Eric Brunner-Williams, Paul Stahura, and James Bladel. Please add them to the list. Thanks, Tim

1 0

Draft minutes GNSO Council teleconference 6 March 2008.
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

[To: council[at]gnso.icann.org] Dear Council Members, Attached, please find the draft minutes of the GNSO Council teleconference held on 6 March 2008. Please let me know if you would like any changes made. Thank you very much. Kind regards, Glen -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

[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] Please note ICANN's the home page http://www.icann.org/ ICANN Launches Contractual Compliance Newsletter http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-03apr08.htm 3 April 2008 MARINA DEL REY, Calif.: The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers today launched the Contractual Compliance Newsletter, a newsletter that offers a snapshot of the wide range of compliance work being done by ICANN. Each issue of the newsletter will cover enforcement statistics, an in-depth look at part of the compliance process, information about audits and studies, and upcoming events. The Newsletter will also include new advisories for registries and registrars to help them understand and continue to improve their compliance with ICANN contracts. In recent feedback on ICANNs performance under the Joint Project Agreement with the US National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration, there was input about ICANN's work on Whois accuracy, and that compliance needed to be better understood. ICANN's goal is that this newsletter will be an important way to address these concerns and continue community dialogue about how to improve contractual compliance. The first issue of the Newsletter explains why and how ICANN does contract compliance with our contracted parties; gTLD registries and registrars. It also includes statistics on the consumer complaints ICANN receives and on enforcement notices we send out. This issues section on studies and audits includes an update on the Whois Data Accuracy Study, the Registrar Whois Data Inaccuracy Audit and the Performance Specifications Audit of Registries. Please send your comments about the newsletter and any topics you would like to see covered in it to compliance(a)icann.org. To subscribe to this Digest, simply click on the link below and provide the requested information: http://www.icann.org/newsletter/ For more information about ICANN's Contractual Compliance Program, please visit http://www.icann.org/compliance. For more information about ICANN's Joint Project Agreement (JPA) with the US National Telecommunications Infrastructure Administration, please visit http://www.icann.org/jpa/ . ________________________________ Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

Agenda for New gTLD face to face meeting on 10-11 April 2008
by Karen Lentz April 4, 2008

April 4, 2008

Dear Councilors, Please find attached the expected agenda for the face to face meeting next week in Los Angeles. We have organized the discussion according to the GNSO's Terms of Reference, with the approximate time frames allotted for each. Additional presentation materials will be distributed prior to the meeting, and these are forthcoming. Staff looks forward to a constructive session. Please let us know if you have additional questions. Best regards, Karen - Karen Lentz The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, No. 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 +1 310 301 5836 office +1 310 895 3637 mobile karen.lentz(a)icann.org

2 1

ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy
by GNSO.SECRETARIAT＠GNSO.ICANN.ORG April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

[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] ICANN Issues Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy Advisory available at http://www.icann.org/announcements/advisory-03apr08.htm Due to perceived confusion within the registrar community concerning the circumstances under which registrars may validly deny transfer requests pursuant to the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy, on 19 September 2007, ICANN issued a Notice of Intent to Issue Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer (Notice) http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-19sep07.htm. As part of this Notice, ICANN published a Proposed Advisory Regarding the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy (Proposed Advisory). The purpose of the Proposed Advisory was to solicit comments regarding whether it was necessary to publish an advisory to assist ICANN-accredited registrars in understanding their obligations under the Inter-Registrar Transfer Policy. The community was informed that comments would be accepted for 30 days regarding the Proposed Advisory. ICANN received 16 comments, of which 14 were supportive of ICANN issuing the Proposed Advisory, one comment opposed the issuance of the Proposed Advisory and one comment was deemed neutral as it did not indicate support or opposition. After considering the comments received and other information provided by registrars regarding the Proposed Advisory, ICANN determined that sufficient confusion exists to warrant the issuance of an advisory to assist registrars in understanding that under the Transfer Policy: 1. Registrars are prohibited from denying a domain name transfer request based on non-payment of fees for pending or future registration periods during the Auto-Renew Grace Period; and 2. A registrant change to Whois information is not a valid basis for denying a transfer request. The Advisory is identical to the Proposed Advisory issued on 19 September 2007, except the term "registration period after expiration" was replaced with "Auto-Renew Grace Period" wherever it appeared in the Proposed Advisory. Developed through ICANN?s consensus policy process, the Transfer Policy was approved unanimously by ICANN?s Generic Names Supporting Organization (GNSO) and its Board of Directors. After consultation with several interested parties, the Transfer Policy was adopted in 2004. The Transfer Policy provides domain name holders with a standardized process for transferring their domain names from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another upon request. All ICANN-accredited registrars and unsponsored gTLD registry operators are required to comply with the Transfer Policy pursuant to their agreements with ICANN. The purpose of the Advisory is to provide clarity and promote consistent handling of transfer requests. -- Glen de Saint Géry GNSO Secretariat - ICANN gnso.secretariat[at]gnso.icann.org http://gnso.icann.org

1 0

RE: [council] RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
by Tim Ruiz April 3, 2008

April 3, 2008

> I just said there was consensus that if > both were implemented the problem likely > would be solved. Mike, I think the above is misleading and I would object to anything close to that statement finding its way in the report. The more important point is that there is no consensus that both are needed. The latter should be clear in the report with explanation/reasoning for both views. Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [council] RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wed, April 02, 2008 6:31 pm To: "Kristina Rosette" <krosette(a)cov.com>, owner-council(a)gnso.icann.org, "GNSO Council" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org, "Jeff Neuman" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> I also disagree with that view. I did not say we had consensus that the two solutions were both necessary; I just said there was consensus that if both were implemented the problem likely would be solved. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette(a)cov.com> Date: Wed, 2 Apr 2008 15:55:42 To:"Council GNSO" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> Cc:<gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org>, "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman(a)neustar.us> Subject: [council] RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting As you all probably expected, I disagreed with that view. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:51 PM To: Tim Ruiz; Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting I agree with Tim with one addition. The ICANN fee not only would not apply to any TLD that implemented the solution, but also had to be tied to a percentage of allowable deletes to not "tax" legitimate deletes (i.e., apply the same 10% rule). Please forward to the Council. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:04 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting 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(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wed, April 02, 2008 9:53 am To: <gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:28 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:19 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:58 AM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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.

1 0

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting
by Rosette, Kristina April 2, 2008

April 2, 2008

As you all probably expected, I disagreed with that view. -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:51 PM To: Tim Ruiz; Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org; Council GNSO Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting I agree with Tim with one addition. The ICANN fee not only would not apply to any TLD that implemented the solution, but also had to be tied to a percentage of allowable deletes to not "tax" legitimate deletes (i.e., apply the same 10% rule). Please forward to the Council. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 3:04 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org; 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] FW: Summary of public comments on a draft GNSO Council resolution to curb domain tasting 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(a)yahoo.com> Date: Wed, April 02, 2008 9:53 am To: <gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org>, "'Council GNSO'" <council(a)gnso.icann.org> 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(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 7:28 AM To: Neuman, Jeff; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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@neustar.us] Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 10:19 AM To: Rosette, Kristina; Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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(a)Neustar.us -----Original Message----- From: owner-gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:58 AM To: Avri Doria; gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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(a)icann.org [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@icann.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, April 02, 2008 9:01 AM To: gnso-dt-wg(a)icann.org 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.

2 1