[council] FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP Deletes Down by 84%

Thu Nov 20 21:15:33 UTC 2008

Mike,

I now understand that you were referring to the AGP consensus policy
recommendation. So what you are asking is why VeriSign didn't implement
it in advance of the completion of the process.  I can't speak for the
business team but I can say that we have contractual obligations with
over 800 registrars. As an attorney, I think you would understand that
there can be risks associated with making changes that may deviate from
our defined business practices.  In the case of a consensus policy, we
are protected in that regard once the consensus policy process,
including implementation is completed.  You may also ask why we did not
propose a registry service in the interim.  I do not have enough
information to answer that but I do know that there are some who are not
convinced that restricting the AGP will necessarily eliminate the abuse
to which you refer.  I think it is fair to say that a large percentage
of domain tasting would not be classified unless you believe domain
tasting is bad, which some do, then you would disagree on that point.

While I am not directly involved on a day-to-day basis. I am aware that
the VeriSign business team is constantly looking at ways to serve all
users of .com and .net names including intellectual property interests
and hopefully you will see the results of those efforts in the future.

Chuck

________________________________

	From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann at rodenbaugh.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 1:43 PM
	To: Gomes, Chuck; 'BC List'; 'GNSO Council';
agp-limits-policy at icann.org
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP Deletes Down
by 84%

	Chuck, I consider you one of the wisest voices around ICANN,
even though we occasionally disagree.  I do not need to belabor this
point, and appreciate your and Craig's attention to the concern.  It is
frustrating to many of us who worked hard for over a year to develop
this Consensus Policy recommendation, and obtain a Supermajority vote of
Council.  Here is the text of the GNSO motion:
http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/minutes-gnso-17apr08.shtml.  We still see
it unimplemented by Verisign seven months later, for no apparent reason,
and damage still occurring from the precise practice we tried to stop.  

	Thanks,

	Mike

________________________________

	From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
	Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 9:43 AM
	To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; BC List; GNSO Council;
agp-limits-policy at icann.org
	Subject: RE: [council] FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP Deletes Down
by 84%

	Mike,

	Forgiving for being dense, but I was asking an honest question.
To what motion are you referring?  What motion do think VeriSign has
ignored?  I suppose I can go back to April and check it out when I get
time if you don't want to clarify.

	Chuck

________________________________

		From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:icann at rodenbaugh.com] 
		Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2008 10:21 AM
		To: Gomes, Chuck; icann at rodenbaugh.com; 'BC List'; 'GNSO
Council'; agp-limits-policy at icann.org
		Subject: RE: [council] FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP
Deletes Down by 84%

		Chuck, I guess I shouldn't be surprised to hear you ask
this question!  Since it sure seems Verisign has ignored the Council
resolution addressing domain tasting, passed by Council in April by
supermajority (including your vote from the RyC) and by the Board in
June.

		-Mike

________________________________

		From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com] 
		Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:37 PM
		To: icann at rodenbaugh.com; BC List; GNSO Council;
agp-limits-policy at icann.org
		Subject: RE: [council] FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP
Deletes Down by 84%

		What GNSO resolution are you talking about Mike.

		Chuck

________________________________

			From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
			Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2008 8:19 PM
			To: BC List; GNSO Council;
agp-limits-policy at icann.org
			Subject: [council] FW: ICANN News Alert -- AGP
Deletes Down by 84%

			Below is the 'news alert' from ICANN about the
effect of the budget measure designed to mitigate commercial domain
tasting, by imposing the .20 ICANN fee on every domain deleted over the
threshold of 10% of any registrar's net adds in a month.  There has
definitely been a positive impact, with AGP deletes down 84% overall.

			Unfortunately, ICANN does not mention that one
registrar - NameKing -- accounted for nearly 40% of the .com AGP deletes
in July (956,000, vs. 12,000 adds).  Another family of registrars - eNom
- accounted for approximately 25% of them (559,000 vs. 203,000 adds). 

			See Verisign registry report here:
http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/com-net/verisign-200807.pdf

			It is particularly glaring that just two
registrars accounted for 1.5 million AGP deletes in .com in one month,
apparently disregarding the will of the Council and ICANN Board,
entirely.  Neither ICANN nor Verisign have mentioned why it is taking so
long for Verisign to implement the GNSO Council resolution that might
mitigate the NameKing and eNom domain tasting business model, as was
clearly intended by a supermajority of Council and the ICANN Board.
Fwiw, many in the Business Constituency are interested to have some
indication of when the resolution will be implemented, and why it has
not been implemented to date.  

			Thanks,

			Mike Rodenbaugh

________________________________

			From: ICANN News Alert
[mailto:communications at icann.org] 
			Sent: Thursday, November 13, 2008 3:49 PM
			To: icann at rodenbaugh.com
			Subject: ICANN News Alert -- AGP Deletes Down by
84%

			ICANN <http://www.icann.org/> 

			News Alert

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-13nov08-en.htm

________________________________

			AGP Deletes Down by 84%

			13 November 2008

			In June 2008, the ICANN Board approved the FY09
Budget that contained a provision on AGP deletes. The provision is that
domain names deleted during the AGP will be included as transactions if
they exceed the maximum of (i) 10% of that registrar's net new
registrations in that month, or (ii) fifty (50) domain names, whichever
is greater. Therefore the per-transaction fee, currently US$0.20, will
be assessed on all AGP deletes that exceed the defined threshold. 

			This provision was adopted as a short-term
solution to address excessive AGP delete activity until the consensus
policy on domain tasting, now referred to as the AGP Limits Policy, is
implemented. The Policy and draft implementation plan were posted for
public comment on 20 October 2008 (see,
http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-20oct08-en.htm) and
are expected to be announced for implementation in early December. 

			Following implementation of the Board approved
budget provision that affects the "domain tasting fee," names added and
subsequently deleted during the five-day AGP declined from approximately
17.6M in June 2008 to 2.8M in July 2008. Of the 2.8M AGP deletes in
July, approximately 2.6M were subject to the registrar-level transaction
fee defined by the provision. Therefore, it is expected that the
quantity of AGP deletes will continue to decline until few or none are
subject to the transaction fee.

			ICANN will continue to provide updates to the
community on AGP delete activity following the three-month
confidentiality period for gTLD monthly reports. These reports may be
viewed at http://www.icann.org/en/tlds/monthly-reports/. 

________________________________

			Sign up for ICANN's Monthly Magazine
<http://www.icann.org/magazine/> 

This message was sent from ICANN News Alert to icann at rodenbaugh.com. It
was sent from: ICANN, 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 , Marina del Rey, CA
90292-6601. You can modify/update your subscription via the link below.

Email Marketing Software <http://www.icontact.com/a.pl/144186> 

<http://app.icontact.com/icp/static/images/icons/email_manage_subscripti
on.png> Manage your subscription
<http://app.icontact.com/icp/mmail-mprofile.pl?r=11033829&l=6333&s=PWHD&
m=193464&c=165637>   

<http://click.icptrack.com/icp/track.php?msgid=193464&act=PWHD&r=1103382
9&c=165637> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20081120/be06f95b/attachment.html>