<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.2900.3243" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>So as not to
blindside everyone on the Council call, to allow discussion by the DT-WG team
prior to the Council meeting and to avoid additional delays, I want to alert you
to a position agreed to by a strong majority of RyC members in our regular
meeting earlier today. Regarding the consensus policy motion to be put out
for public comment, most of us in the RyC believe that it would be much better
if clause 2 of the motion was deleted before putting the motion out for public
comment. My attempt to describe our thinking in that regard
follows.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=718025319-05032008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>First let me cut and
paste clause 2 here: "<FONT face="Times New Roman"><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt; mso-fareast-font-family: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-family: Calibri"><SPAN
style="mso-list: Ignore"><SPAN style="FONT: 7pt 'Times New Roman'">
</SPAN></SPAN></SPAN><SPAN
style="FONT-FAMILY: Calibri; mso-bidi-font-size: 12.0pt"><FONT size=3>The above
restriction on use of the Add Grace Period shall be considered an “ICANN adopted
specification or polic[y] prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or
speculation in domain names by registrars” in accordance with Section 3.7.9 of
the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.<SPAN style="mso-spacerun: yes">
</SPAN>As such, a Registrar that engages in domain tasting, defined as using the
AGP to register domain names in order to test their profitability, shall be
deemed in material breach of the Registrar Accreditation
Agreement.</FONT></SPAN></FONT>"</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=718025319-05032008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>Our concerns include
the following:</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<UL>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>The wording of this
clause appears to set a policy prohibiting domain name warehousing and domain
name speculation, which was not the topic of this PDP, nor were warehousing or
speculation specified as issues to be covered in the Domain Tasting PDP
that the Council initiated.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>Even if we accept
the fact that domain tasting is a subset of domain warehousing or domain
speculation, we believe that warehousing and speculation involve more than
domain tasting.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>If a policy is to
be developed regarding the broader issues of domain name warehousing and
domain name speculation, then a PDP should be considered in that regard, but
it would not be appropriate to set such a policy without a thorough review of
all of the issues associated with warehousing and speculation including those
unrelated to domain tasting.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>Clause 2 does not
seem to add anything to the motion with regard to domain tasting; it is our
belief that no amendment would be necessary in either registry agreements or
the RAA in order to implement the policy because both registries and
registrars already have terms in their agreements with ICANN that require us
to implement consensus policies. Therefore, if the Council sends the
policy recommendation to the Board and the Board approves it as a consensus
policy, then registries and registrars will be required to implement it.
Deleting clause 2 would not seem to change that scenario at
all.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>Leaving clause 2 in
the motion for public comment will likely distract from the main thrust of the
motion by causing people to focus on the broader issues of warehousing and
speculation as well as on definitions of terms like 'profitability'; moreover,
GNSO processes could be challenged because of the point made in bullet one
above.</SPAN></FONT></LI>
<LI><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>Leaving clause 2 in
the motion could complicate the goal of completing the PDP in a timely
manner.</SPAN></FONT></LI></UL>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>The RyC has never
taken a position regarding the broader issues of domain name warehousing or
domain name speculation nor are we advocating one way or another regarding such
a policy, but we do believe that any such policy should be developed following
existing PDP procedures, making sure that an in-depth examination of all the
related issues happens, not just those related to a subset of those topics
related to domain name tasting.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN
class=718025319-05032008></SPAN></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN class=718025319-05032008>In conclusion, the
RyC suggests that clause 2 of the consensus policy motion be deleted. The
RyC instructed its Council reps to support the motion to put the consensus
policy motion out for public comment and to request updated constituency impact
statements to address the consensus policy motion, but we strongly recommend
that clause 2 be deleted before the motion is acted on.</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>Chuck Gomes</FONT></DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV align=left><FONT face=Tahoma size=2>"This message is intended for the use
of the individual or entity to which it is addressed, and may contain
information that is privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under
applicable law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." </FONT></DIV>
<DIV> </DIV></BODY></HTML>