[council] AGP Limits Policy - Status Report Inquiry

[Gomes, Chuck]

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 at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at 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 at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-council at 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

	 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/council/attachments/20100402/3999a2d8/attachment.html>