Dear Councilors, The AGP Limits Policy contains a provision that requires ICANN staff to provide semi-annual updates to the GSNO on the implementation of the Policy. To date ICANN has issued two reports, the first in June 2009 and the second in December 2009. With excessive AGP deletes down by 99.7%, the Policy is achieving its desired outcome and this was stated in the last report. Also noted in the last report were some registrar complaints about exemptions requests that had been denied when the basis for the request was fraud. >From the 14 December 2009 report, ICANN noted: A question the GNSO Council may wish to consider in the future is whether modifications to the Policy are necessary and/or appropriate given the results and community reaction to date. For example, should the GNSO Council consider defining the terms "extraordinary circumstances" or "reoccur regularly?" During the policy development process on domain tasting some community members suggested that the mitigation of instances of consumer fraud may be a legitimate use of AGP deletes. Additionally, if a registrar proactively takes down (i.e., deletes) domains that are known to propagate a fraudulent activity such as phishing, should the registrar bear the cost if the deletions cause the registrar to exceed the threshold defined in the Policy? Staff recommends that the GSNO consider whether further work is needed in light of the fact that excessive AGP deletes are down by 99.7%. Staff further recommends that the Council consider whether semi-annual reports should be continued and if so, with what frequency? I'm happy to join the next GNSO call to discuss this and to answer any questions you may have. Best, Craig Schwartz Chief gTLD Registry Liaison ICANN