I do not see how this would prescribe or limit the price of a Registry Service. It simply says that whatever price is charged cannot be refunded under certain circumstances, in order to mitigate a practice that the ICANN Counsel has already found to be within GNSO policy-making purview. I think there is no harm in continuing with the 21-day public comment period, and hopefully we can get any additional guidance from Counsel during that timeframe as well. -Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: Adrian Kinderis [mailto:adrian@ausregistry.com.au] Sent: Monday, March 03, 2008 2:30 PM To: mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org; GNSO Council Cc: Registrars Constituency Subject: RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting Thanks for your response Mike. One question from the Registrar Constituency to the Council; Is it possible to get ICANN General Counsel's Office to review this proposal and advise whether it is viable under the existing registry agreements? The .com agreement states that Consensus Policies may not "prescribe or limit the price of Registry Services" (see Section 3.1(b)(v)(A) http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06.htm). Would a policy dictating how much VeriSign could refund registrars during the AGP be considered a prescription or limitation on the price of Registry Services? This is fundamental to the progressing of this issue and was discussed briefly at the meeting in India. We, the Registrar Constituency, would certainly like to have this answered prior to utilising resources in reviewing a proposal that may, indeed, be unenforceable. Thanks. Adrian Kinderis Managing Director AusRegistry Group Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistrygroup.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com] Sent: Tuesday, 4 March 2008 12:19 AM To: Adrian Kinderis; owner-council@gnso.icann.org; gnso-dt-wg@icann.org; GNSO Council Cc: Registrars Constituency Subject: Re: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting Hi Adrian. The team was me, Kristina, Tim, Alan and recently Jeff Neuman. Text was unanimously agreed although i made some minor edits at last turn that some may not have seen. There is precedent for Council to monitor implementation of its policies, and seemed like a good idea for this. Thanks, Mike -----Original Message----- From: "Adrian Kinderis" <adrian@ausregistry.com.au> Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2008 14:57:11 To:"Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@yahoo.com>, <gnso-dt-wg@icann.org>, "Council GNSO" <council@gnso.icann.org> Cc:"Registrars Constituency" <registrars@gnso.icann.org> Subject: RE: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting Mike, I have a few issues with what you have suggested but will wait for the Registrar Constituency's response prior to proposing them. That said, I am not sure I understand Part 3 of your motion and would like some clarification. I am of the opinion that once the Board decides on supporting a request or a policy, that it becomes a "Board policy". Why are we instructing staff to report back to the GNSO council? Surely the Board would want to grapple with the effectiveness and implications arising out of the policy "they" implemented. It is up to them, I would think, to set the parameters of measurement. I could be wrong, but I thought that we, as the GNSO Council were to suggest policy and provide background to enable the ICANN Board to make informed decisions. It is the ICANN Board that makes policy and reviews the effectiveness of those decisions. Is it our job to get ICANN staff to report to us on matters of the Board? Also, can you please provide some clarity around "the Design Team" (perhaps just to remind me again). Who were the members exactly and how did you arrive at the motion? How was consensus for the actual wording reached? Thanks for this and sorry if I am backtracking unnecessarily. Regards, Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistryinternational.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Monday, 3 March 2008 1:33 PM To: gnso-dt-wg@icann.org; 'Council GNSO' Subject: [council] Motions re Domain Tasting The Domain Tasting team has devised the following motion, which effectively would put the attached substantive motion out for public comments for 21 days and set a timeline for final vote in our April 17 Council meeting. Whereas, the GNSO Council has discussed the Issues Report on Domain Tasting and the Final Outcomes Report of the ad hoc group on Domain Tasting; Whereas, the GNSO Council resolved on 31 October 2007 to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to request Constituency Impact Statements with respect to issues set forth in the Issues Report and in the Final Outcomes Report; Whereas, the GNSO Council authorized on 17 January 2008 the formation of a small design team to develop a plan for the deliberations on the Domain Tasting PDP (the "Design Team"), the principal volunteers to which had been members of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and were well-informed of both the Final Outcomes Report of the Ad Hoc Group on Domain Tasting and the GNSO Initial Report on Domain Tasting (collectively with the Issues Report, the "Reports on Domain Tasting"); Whereas, the Design Team has met and agreed on a Draft Motion [attached] to be set out for public comment and for Constituency Impact review; The GNSO Council RESOLVES: 1. The Draft Motion shall be posted for 21-day public comment on March 7, 2008. Each Constituency shall have 21 days from March 7, 2008 to update its Constituency Impact Statement with respect to this motion, if it so chooses. The deadline for amended Statements shall be March 28, 2008. 2. ICANN Staff please shall provide a summary of any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements to the Council, via submission of a Final Report with respect to this PDP, by April 4, 2008. 3. The Design Team shall then meet and confer with respect to the Final Report, in order to consider any public comments and/or amended Constituency Impact Statements and to consider any suggested amendments to the Draft Motion, and shall recommend a Final Motion to be considered by Council for vote in its scheduled meeting April 17, 2008. 4. It is the intention of the GNSO for the Staff to produce a Board Report on this PDP for consideration by the ICANN Board, in the hope that the Board may vote on any recommendations of the GNSO with respect to this PDP, at the scheduled ICANN meeting in Paris in June, 2008 Mike Rodenbaugh