ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting


I agree!
This action effects the registrars most strongly and we should present a united front!
While the GNSO has worked very hard I do not see that they fully understand registrar concerns
If we don't come up with a united front we may well be stuck with the GNSO motion.

A small amount say 20 cents above an agreed minimum ..if the previously suggested minimun is not sufficient perhaps the greatest of 100 or 15% of deletes with the fund going to ICANN (in the hope of reduced fees) or how our registrar constituencey association or FOURI (Fund to offset unwarranted registry increases?
Registrars should still be able to apply for exemptions but perhaps "extraordinary events" as the GNSO suggests is too strong a word as cases of fraud, API abuse, hackers, and even registrar errors can occur or any events in which the deletions are not as a result of domain tasting are sadly not necessarily rare events.

I most strenuoulsy object to paying full fees in the AGP period as it is a great deal of work to sort out in the case of a minor overlap.
We also do not want to be in the position of having some registrars reluctant to delete/refund registrants for typo due to a run of fraud that month.

Since Bhavin has given this process a great deal of thought I would like to suggest he word a motion that we can all vote on.
He might want to suggest different possilities on the minimum number of forgiveable domain deletions, the amount to pay after this and where the funds could go.

Helen

----- Original Message ----- From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "'Registrar Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 7:56 AM
Subject: RE: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting






Keep in mind that the motion proposes pretty much the same
thing as the
already approved funnel requests of Neustar and Afilias for .biz and
.info. And that the current form of the registry agreements

I agree. And that was discussed in the last meeting. Several registrars had
brought this up in the RC meet as well as in the cross constituency meet. I
remember a heated argument with jeff neumann about the negative implications
of these funnel requests.

specifically
allows registries to limit the AGP deletes, so funnel requests from
other registries are likely to be approved just as quickly. What the
motion provides is a more consistent implementation across
registries.

While I am all for consistency, and definitely like the GNSO coming up with
something that is standardized rather than independent registry funnel
requests, in this case I think that is not required given the ICANN Board
proposal. That proposal by itself is consistent and eliminates the need then
for individual funnel requests OR for a GNSO proposal

Also, the first step in getting our message across to the
Board is with
the GNSO vote on this motion. Whether we vote in favor or not
we should
include an on-the-record statement regarding our views of both the
motion and the ICANN fee. See my proposal on the Members list.

I agree that we need to vote and make a statement. Will send comments on the
statement on the members list.

bhavin



--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG.
Version: 7.5.519 / Virus Database: 269.22.12/1372 - Release Date: 10/04/2008 5:36 PM




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>