AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry
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
Thanks Craig. I am curious to know from contract parties whether the fraud issue is really a significant issue needed Council consideration. Otherwise, I think this issue can be closed and no further reports are needed to the Council since the stats are reported in the monthly registry reports anyway. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 <http://rodenbaugh.com/> http://rodenbaugh.com From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Craig Schwartz Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:38 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry 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
Mike, I contacted Barbara Steele in our customer affairs office and she shared the following. Given that there is a 10% deletion allowance, it is their opinion that this should be adequate to address any issues that a registrar is having with traditional fraud, i.e., stolen credit cards, etc. If they have deletes of more than 10% "due to fraud", then the registrars experiencing this have bigger issues that they are not addressing. What we have found is that registrars would claim fraud when submitting a request for an exemption and when we denied the request indicating that we don't view fraud as an extraordinary circumstance, the registrar's AGP deletion percentage would drop down below the 10% threshold or they moved on to claims of phishing. We do want registrars to "do the right thing" and take down domains that are being used for nefarious activity but if they are exceeding the AGP threshold, then we expect them to be able to substantiate their claim and not just use one of the industry's hot buzz words and expect that we will grant the exemption. If fraud (and unsubstantiated phishing) were deemed to be valid examples of extraordinary circumstances, then I think that ICANN would find that their 'successful' policy is not so 'successful' after all. Even with the low number of exemption requests that we receive each month, we spend a huge amount of time trying to substantiate the claims and then getting the internal approvals of our recommendations. I have concerns that if "fraud" and "phishing" become the "get out of jail" free card for submitting exemption requests, then we will see more registrars exceeding the 10% threshold and then submitting an exemption request for the domain names over the threshold. I don't think that VeriSign (or any other registry) would want to hire the number of people that it would take to process the increase in claims and I don't think that ICANN would be very happy with the number of AGP deletes increasing. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:48 PM To: 'Craig Schwartz'; 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry Thanks Craig. I am curious to know from contract parties whether the fraud issue is really a significant issue needed Council consideration. Otherwise, I think this issue can be closed and no further reports are needed to the Council since the stats are reported in the monthly registry reports anyway. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Craig Schwartz Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:38 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry 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
Chuck, if I am reading your message correctly (and specifically the part that says "then we expect them to be able to substantiate their claim and not just use one of the industry's hot buzz words and expect that we will grant the exemption"), this means that you are rejecting claims that simply cite "fraud", but that if a registrar were to make a claim with specific details indicating the particulars (on X date, we received Y registrations within a Z hour period all using different credit card numbers or whatever) and backing it up with records from their credit-card service, and perhaps a plan to avoid the problem in the future, you might treat it as an valid exception? Alan At 02/04/2010 06:10 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:
Mike,
I contacted Barbara Steele in our customer affairs office and she shared the following.
Given that there is a 10% deletion allowance, it is their opinion that this should be adequate to address any issues that a registrar is having with traditional fraud, i.e., stolen credit cards, etc. If they have deletes of more than 10% "due to fraud", then the registrars experiencing this have bigger issues that they are not addressing. What we have found is that registrars would claim fraud when submitting a request for an exemption and when we denied the request indicating that we don't view fraud as an extraordinary circumstance, the registrar's AGP deletion percentage would drop down below the 10% threshold or they moved on to claims of phishing. We do want registrars to "do the right thing" and take down domains that are being used for nefarious activity but if they are exceeding the AGP threshold, then we expect them to be able to substantiate their claim and not just use one of the industry's hot buzz words and expect that we will grant the exemption.
If fraud (and unsubstantiated phishing) were deemed to be valid examples of extraordinary circumstances, then I think that ICANN would find that their 'successful' policy is not so 'successful' after all. Even with the low number of exemption requests that we receive each month, we spend a huge amount of time trying to substantiate the claims and then getting the internal approvals of our recommendations. I have concerns that if "fraud" and "phishing" become the "get out of jail" free card for submitting exemption requests, then we will see more registrars exceeding the 10% threshold and then submitting an exemption request for the domain names over the threshold. I don't think that VeriSign (or any other registry) would want to hire the number of people that it would take to process the increase in claims and I don't think that ICANN would be very happy with the number of AGP deletes increasing.
Chuck
---------- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:48 PM To: 'Craig Schwartz'; 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry
Thanks Craig.
I am curious to know from contract parties whether the fraud issue is really a significant issue needed Council consideration. Otherwise, I think this issue can be closed and no further reports are needed to the Council since the stats are reported in the monthly registry reports anyway.
Mike Rodenbaugh
RODENBAUGH LAW
tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087
<http://rodenbaugh.com/>http://rodenbaugh.com
From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Craig Schwartz Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:38 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry
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
Alan, You are correct Alan. We reject claims that simply cite fraud as the reason without sufficient details to justify the exception. The 10% allowance should be more than adequate to cover most instances of fraud if a registrar is properly managing its services. If there are cases that go beyond that, then we will evaluate them on a case by case basis. As our experience has shown, if we simply approve exceptions if someone uses the key word fraud, it will be abused. Chuck ________________________________ From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 7:03 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; icann@rodenbaugh.com; Craig Schwartz; GNSO Council Subject: RE: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry Chuck, if I am reading your message correctly (and specifically the part that says "then we expect them to be able to substantiate their claim and not just use one of the industry's hot buzz words and expect that we will grant the exemption"), this means that you are rejecting claims that simply cite "fraud", but that if a registrar were to make a claim with specific details indicating the particulars (on X date, we received Y registrations within a Z hour period all using different credit card numbers or whatever) and backing it up with records from their credit-card service, and perhaps a plan to avoid the problem in the future, you might treat it as an valid exception? Alan At 02/04/2010 06:10 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote: Mike, I contacted Barbara Steele in our customer affairs office and she shared the following. Given that there is a 10% deletion allowance, it is their opinion that this should be adequate to address any issues that a registrar is having with traditional fraud, i.e., stolen credit cards, etc. If they have deletes of more than 10% "due to fraud", then the registrars experiencing this have bigger issues that they are not addressing. What we have found is that registrars would claim fraud when submitting a request for an exemption and when we denied the request indicating that we don't view fraud as an extraordinary circumstance, the registrar's AGP deletion percentage would drop down below the 10% threshold or they moved on to claims of phishing. We do want registrars to "do the right thing" and take down domains that are being used for nefarious activity but if they are exceeding the AGP threshold, then we expect them to be able to substantiate their claim and not just use one of the industry's hot buzz words and expect that we will grant the exemption. If fraud (and unsubstantiated phishing) were deemed to be valid examples of extraordinary circumstances, then I think that ICANN would find that their 'successful' policy is not so 'successful' after all. Even with the low number of exemption requests that we receive each month, we spend a huge amount of time trying to substantiate the claims and then getting the internal approvals of our recommendations. I have concerns that if "fraud" and "phishing" become the "get out of jail" free card for submitting exemption requests, then we will see more registrars exceeding the 10% threshold and then submitting an exemption request for the domain names over the threshold. I don't think that VeriSign (or any other registry) would want to hire the number of people that it would take to process the increase in claims and I don't think that ICANN would be very happy with the number of AGP deletes increasing. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 3:48 PM To: 'Craig Schwartz'; 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry Thanks Craig. I am curious to know from contract parties whether the fraud issue is really a significant issue needed Council consideration. Otherwise, I think this issue can be closed and no further reports are needed to the Council since the stats are reported in the monthly registry reports anyway. Mike Rodenbaugh RODENBAUGH LAW tel/fax: +1 (415) 738-8087 http://rodenbaugh.com <http://rodenbaugh.com/> From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [ mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org <mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Craig Schwartz Sent: Friday, April 02, 2010 6:38 AM To: GNSO Council Subject: [council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry 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
participants (4)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Craig Schwartz -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh