Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005
Hello All, Please find below a draft agenda for a Council meeting on 13 Jan. The timing of the meeting is to ensure we can coordinate a response to the GNSO Council external review by 24 Jan 2005. Happy New Year! Regards, Bruce Tonkin Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005 NOTE CHANGE IN TIME FOR MEETING FOR NORTHERN HEMISPHERE WINTER TIME Coordinated Universal Time UTC 19:00 (11am Los Angeles, 2pm Washington DC, 7pm London, 6am (next day) Melbourne ) Item 1: Approval of minutes Item 2: Response to GNSO Council external review (the public comment period is due to complete on 24 January 2005) http://gnso.icann.org/reviews/gnso-review-sec1-22dec04.pdf Item 3: Update on procedure for use by ICANN in considering requests for consent and related contractual amendments to allow changes in the architecture and operation of a gTLD registry. Item 4: Update on WHOIS task forces Item 5: ICANN strategic plan (comment period 28 Feb 2005) Regards, Bruce Tonkin
Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13 January Council meeting on behalf of the BC? Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served and this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and registrars is small and similar. But it does not work for special names where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name has perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic with the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some names are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic still active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business opportunity for registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are "slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names. Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars, some registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars whose sole purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for the parent registrar to get desirable names. This massive set of requests is affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona fide business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of these new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed. Proposal Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the need for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report. Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate. Many thanks Philip PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the resolution should this help clarity.
Philip, I believe that I understand the intent of this motion, and I don't think I disagree with it, but might I suggest that we instead look at this issue in the context of the stability of the DNS and the registration and management function instead of the market and operational slant that found in the current overview and motion? In other words, let's look at this from a policy failure and remediation perspective instead of attempting to navigate business models and operational practices. (happy new year everyone!) On 1/5/2005 8:49 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:
Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13 January Council meeting on behalf of the BC?
Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market
The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served and this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and registrars is small and similar. But it does not work for special names where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name has perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic with the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some names are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic still active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business opportunity for registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are "slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names. Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars, some registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars whose sole purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for the parent registrar to get desirable names. This massive set of requests is affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona fide business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of these new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed.
Proposal Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the need for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report.
Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars,
Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.
Many thanks Philip
PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the resolution should this help clarity.
-- Regards, -rwr "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress." - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)
Fellow councilors i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the Registries and Registrars (with the assistance of ICANN staff). I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues. ken Stubbs Ross Wm. Rader wrote:
Philip,
I believe that I understand the intent of this motion, and I don't think I disagree with it, but might I suggest that we instead look at this issue in the context of the stability of the DNS and the registration and management function instead of the market and operational slant that found in the current overview and motion?
In other words, let's look at this from a policy failure and remediation perspective instead of attempting to navigate business models and operational practices.
(happy new year everyone!)
On 1/5/2005 8:49 AM Philip Sheppard noted that:
Bruce, would you be kind enough to table this resolution for the 13 January Council meeting on behalf of the BC?
Issue - Re-selling of valuable deleted domain names in a secondary market
The typical model for selling deleted TLDs is first-come first-served and this works well for ordinary names where the profit to registries and registrars is small and similar. But it does not work for special names where the domain name equity is much higher, either because the name has perceived value, or there is a desirable level of associated traffic with the name. A secondary market has grown up to remarket the names. Some names are bought for speculative resell; others because they have traffic still active and are resold to redirect the traffic to other, sometimes undesirable, sites. This market has created a new business opportunity for registrars and a problem for the registries. Certain registrars are "slaming" the registries with automated requests for desirable names. Because the present system provides equal access to all registrars, some registrars have created new ICANN accredited daughter registrars whose sole purpose is to request deleted names - thus increasing the chance for the parent registrar to get desirable names. This massive set of requests is affecting the ability of the registrars to manage their existing bona fide business efficiently. This impacts on stability. The implication of these new types of ICANN accredited registrars needs to be assessed.
Proposal Council needs to investigate the issue fully and so should consider the need for a PDP with a request for ICANN staff to write an issues report.
Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars,
Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.
Many thanks Philip
PS I am open to friendly amendments to improve the wording of the resolution should this help clarity.
On 1/5/2005 6:57 PM Ken Stubbs noted that:
Fellow councilors
i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the Registries and Registrars (with the assistance of ICANN staff). I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues.
I don't believe that Philip was calling for a PDP, rather, my understanding is that he is calling for a analysis of the salient issues so the GNSO Council could decide if a PDP is appropriate. My comments were meant to limit the scope of this analysis to the policy failures that led to Philip's observations without including business model or operation practice. Given the proper foundation, I think this is a perfectly healthy undertaking. -- Regards, -rwr "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress." - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)
Dear all, Please note that Philip Sheppard was submitting this request for an Issues Report, which is the first step to examining an issue, on behalf of the BC. Council's task, once an Issues Report is received, is to then determine whether a PDP is indicated. It is important to remember that even when sometimes one might like to think that an issue is only between registrars and registries, in fact, it is users -- of all varieties -- who are affected. As of course, we all know about transfers and deletes. Registrars and registries do not exist in and unto themselves, but because there are users who rely upon their services to register domain names, etc. etc. Thus, it is always important to include the user perspective -- and the BC agrees that User is a broad term that encompasses users of all varieties -- from individuals, to NGOs, to companies, to even governments when they are "users". -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Wm. Rader Sent: Wednesday, January 05, 2005 7:08 PM To: Ken Stubbs Cc: Philip Sheppard; 'Bruce Tonkin'; council@gnso.icann.org Subject: Re: [council] Draft Agenda for Council meeting Thursday 13 January 2005 On 1/5/2005 6:57 PM Ken Stubbs noted that:
Fellow councilors
i believe that these are issues that need to be worked out between the Registries and Registrars (with the assistance of ICANN staff). I don't really see the need for creation of consensus policies (as outlined in Philip's e-mail) to deal with these issues.
I don't believe that Philip was calling for a PDP, rather, my understanding is that he is calling for a analysis of the salient issues so the GNSO Council could decide if a PDP is appropriate. My comments were meant to limit the scope of this analysis to the policy failures that led to Philip's observations without including business model or operation practice. Given the proper foundation, I think this is a perfectly healthy undertaking. -- Regards, -rwr "In the modern world the intelligence of public opinion is the one indispensable condition for social progress." - Charles W. Eliot (1834 - 1926)
Ross, Ken, Council I fully support Ross's guidance here. My initial paragraph of explanation was only intended to explain the consequences of the stability and operational issues to those who may be un familiar with the issue. I attempted with the resolution itself (repeated below) - the only part that need go forward to ICANN staff manager - to word it neutrally. Philip Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.
I would suggest that the first Whereas be modified to recognize that the change has an impact on users of names - that is registrants - as well. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, January 06, 2005 3:41 AM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] re proposed resolution for issues report on deleted names Ross, Ken, Council I fully support Ross's guidance here. My initial paragraph of explanation was only intended to explain the consequences of the stability and operational issues to those who may be un familiar with the issue. I attempted with the resolution itself (repeated below) - the only part that need go forward to ICANN staff manager - to word it neutrally. Philip Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.
Marilyn, I believe the second whereas refers to the first whereas and explicitly mentions users. Philip
I would like to second the proposal too. Take care, Kiyoshi Kiyoshi I. Tsuru Bello, Guzmán, Morales y Tsuru, S.C. Agustín Manuel Chávez 1 - 104 Centro de Ciudad Santa Fe 01210, México, D.F. Tel. +52 (55) 5292-5232 Fax +52 (55) 5292-5233 <http://www.bgmt.com.mx/> www.bgmt.com.mx La información contenida en este mensaje de datos es confidencial, constituye un secreto industrial en términos de la legislación vigente y se encuentra dirigida exclusivamente al destinatario indicado en dicho mensaje. Si usted recibe esta información por error o si usted no es el destinatario del mensaje, favor de destruirlo inmediatamente, absteniéndose de leerlo, reproducirlo, transmitirlo, almacenarlo, divulgarlo, revelarlo o usarlo de manera directa o indirecta en cualquier forma y por cualquier medio. Muchas gracias. The information contained in this electronic message is confidential, privileged and intended for its recipient only. If you receive this mail by mistake and/or if you are not the recipient thereof, please destroy it immediately, abstaining yourself from reading, reproducing, transmitting, storing, disclosing, revealing or using it, either directly or indirectly, in any manner and by any means. Thank you very much. _____ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Philip Sheppard Sent: Jueves, 06 de Enero de 2005 03:41 a.m. To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] re proposed resolution for issues report on deleted names Ross, Ken, Council I fully support Ross's guidance here. My initial paragraph of explanation was only intended to explain the consequences of the stability and operational issues to those who may be un familiar with the issue. I attempted with the resolution itself (repeated below) - the only part that need go forward to ICANN staff manager - to word it neutrally. Philip Draft resolution Whereas the re-selling of certain deleted or expiring names has lead to unforeseen strains on the ability of registries and registrars to manage their business efficiently, Whereas this affects the service level provided to users and the meaning of ICANN accredited as it applies to registrars, Council resolves, to request the ICANN staff manager to write an issues report (as specified in annex A to the ICANN by-laws) on the "Re-selling of valuable deleted/expiring domain names in a secondary market", so that Council can subsequently decide if a policy development process would be appropriate.
participants (6)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Ken Stubbs -
Kiyoshi I. Tsuru -
Marilyn Cade -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Wm. Rader