<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.MsoPlainText, li.MsoPlainText, div.MsoPlainText
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:"Courier New";}
@page Section1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 77.95pt 1.0in 77.95pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Based on reading the Preliminary Report for the Special Meeting of the
ICANN Board of Directors and the result below (in italics) , do we even need to
vote? What are out next steps here now that the following resolution has been passed?
<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'>THEREFORE, the Board resolves
(2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to<o:p></o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'>include fees for all domains added,
including domains added during the AGP,<o:p></o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'>and encourages community discussion
involved in developing the ICANN budget,<o:p></o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'>subject to both Board approval and
registrar approval of this fee.<o:p></o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><i><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-style:italic'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></i></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>6) </span></font><b><font size=3><span style='font-size:12.0pt;
font-weight:bold'>Compliance Report on Network Solutions' Domain Reservation
Activities</span></font></b><o:p></o:p></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Bruce Tonkin recused himself from the discussion and dropped off the
call during the discussion of items 5 & 6 due to potential conflict of
interest. Kurt Pritz indicated that tasting is a practice that has grown over
the years and that many recent discussions and writings demonstrate that the Board
is already well versed on the related issues. Kurt indicated that ICANN has
collected some information that a few parties have taken the practice to its
logical conclusion, and operate exclusively on this model - deleting as much as
95.5% of names registered within the five-day grace period. Others exercise
degrees of restraint. There are a spread percentage of names deleted in the
grace period across all registrars that ranges from 0% to 99.5%. ICANN has had
many discussions and consultations on this issue. It was proposed that ICANN
charged a transaction fee on add-grace deletes in the 2004-2005 budget but
there was substantial criticism that such a fee would be de-facto policy making
by ICANN staff. Recently the GNSO voted to recommend that staff take action to
change its transaction fee to change in for tasting deletes. If ICANN changed
transaction fee in this manner, most think practice would cease. The vote
represents Supporting Organization policy support for alternative budget.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The staff paper discusses three options for addressing tasting, to
eliminate the practice. These are three options that have been discussed
recently in many recent writings describing the tasting practice and its
effects. As discussed in the GNSO report and elsewhere, there are basically
three options that could be used to attack domain tasting: (1) ICANN could
revise its registrar-level transaction fee (the current rate is US$0.20, which
is subject to raise as the contracted rate is US$0.25) to cover all new
registrations and discontinue the exemption for "tasted" domains, (2)
registries could impose a "restocking" fee for disproportionate
domain deletions, or (3) ICANN could establish a new "policy"
effectively deleting the add grace period policy in the registry agreements.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Revising the registrar fees would be discussed with the community and
specifically with registrars whose approval would be sought in accordance with
the 2/3 requirements relating to approval of the ICANN budget by the
registrars. Imposing a registry level restocking fee such as .org has
implemented in its registry, is problematic because pricing and imposition of
fees for registry services is considered as outside that “picket
fence” that describes constraints on consensus policy. A consensus or
temporary policy to delete the registry agreement contractual provision that
specifies the add-grace period might not be an effective means of eliminating
the practice. Tasting could still be offered as a short-term pricing or
introductory price discounts even if the five-day period did not exist.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Susan Crawford noted that she had been consulting with parties involved
with and concerned with tasting and watching the Board discussion and the
points of view discussed. In light of this, she circulated a resolution for the
Board to consider that suggested that the Board take an emergency step to
impose a fee on names deleted during the add grace period (AGP). This could be
accomplished in the regular budget cycle. In order to expedite implementation,
Susan proposed the Board adopt a resolution today as an emergency policy
focused on the impact on security and stability and relating it to the recent
service introduced by Network Solutions.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>With regard to the proposed resolution, Jean-Jacques Subrenat thought
it was not absolutely necessary to include the reference to 'security and
stability'. Citing his understanding of the urgency for the Board to take such
a motion, he considered however that these practices under scrutiny do not in a
significant way endanger security and stability, he suggested ICANN drop the
reference to security and stability.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Paul Twomey suggested that the resolution should encourage further
exploration of the issue rather than reach a conclusion because we need to give
at least 21 days public notice on such a proposition, and the ICANN Board
should not agree that the fee be imposed until after public comment. Dennis
Jennings and Steve Goldstein suggested additional proposed changes to the
language.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>John Jeffrey advised that any attempt to invoke consensus policy would
need to comply with bylaws. Resolutions to address tasting by invoking the
consensus (or temporary) policy provisions of ICANN's registry or registrar
agreements would have to comply with both the terms of those agreements, and
with ICANN's Bylaws. Bylaws Article III, Section 6, for example, requires
that "With respect to any policies that are being considered by the Board
for adoption that substantially affect the operation of the Internet or third
parties, including the imposition of any fees or charges, ICANN shall […]
provide public notice on the Website explaining what policies are being
considered for adoption and why, at least twenty-one days (and if practical,
earlier) prior to any action by the Board …" <http://www.icann.org/general/bylaws.htm#III-6>.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Susan Crawford agreed with changes to her proposed resolution by
Jean-Jacques, Dennis Jennings, Paul Twomey and John Jeffrey.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Janis Karklins advised that during the last GAC call there was a
request to engage with the Board on domain name tasting in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">New Delhi</st1:place></st1:City>, and he will be requesting a staff
briefing for the GAC as well.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The Chair asked in the context of the problem the registry and
registrar agreements, and under the bylaws, if the Board is able to do this and
make such a resolution.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Susan Crawford considered that the Board adopts lots of resolutions
like this, the “whereas” clauses identify scope, issues and what
ICANN is encouraging through a budget process that we think will address
tasting. She indicated that ICANN is not adopting a policy, but are directing
staff to take actions in compliance with the existing budget process.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The Chair considered the next general issue is the reference to the
issue of the NSI practice, and asked whether it is clear that that practice
will be addressed by this approach?<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Kurt Pritz advised that the NSI practice is enabled by the AGP: putting
the name on hold for 5 days. If NSI is required to pay a transaction fee then
it is general opinion that the practice would end. John Jeffrey confirmed that
in conversations with NSI, a representative had indicated that the service had
already been revised since it was initiated, and also that if ICANN were to
impose a fee for the AGP than they would likely roll back the service.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The Chair asked for further developments on the NSI situation.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Kurt Pritz advised that ICANN wrote to NSI to investigate the practice
and determine if the practice is in violation of the RAA. NSI had already
amended the practice prior to that writing to bring it into compliance with the
RAA. These were essentially nuances to the initial version of the practices
– in essence, it has the same effect. There may be one more change to the
practice to bring it into RAA compliance.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Steve Crocker advised that SSAC had spent a lot of time thinking about
this and he made two observations. The AGP is the connective tissue between
NSI's goals in the new service and their ability to offer the service, but it
is not the right issue. Information supplied by the user when checking name
availability disadvantages the user in an unexpected way and when exposed a
registrant would not want the registrar to operate in this way. Raising the
price on five-day registrations is a pragmatic approach but it does not get to
the core value underlying this. We may feel good about the fee but it does not
get to the core of what's going on. We should not casually drive by and address
a serious underlying issue with the fee. Regarding other ways to eliminate
tasting, removing the AGP as a registry contract requirement would not
necessarily be effective because a registry might choose to offer some fee
discount period for whatever reason that would effectively replicate the AGP.
Therefore, although ICANN might remove the AGP as a requirement, it is not
assured that this would remove this as an option. If the transaction fee is
imposed on add-grace deletes ICANN could subsidize costs resulting from typos
or fraud.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Steve continued that the dialogue we're having has been about imposing
a fee during the AGP, another option is we simply stop defining AGP: taking
away any recognition of it as a separate type of transaction. Everything gets
simpler if we remove the AGP as having any special meaning or purpose. The NSI
situation is distinct from other uses of the AGP and depends on the AGP for
efficiency but that is not the only example of a registrar or entity taking
advantage of information supplied by customer. Steve's perspective on AGP is
that we should stop subsidizing the practice and the other issues will be
resolved.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The Chair asked Steve his opinion of Susan's resolution. Steve Crocker
responded that he is sympathetic to adopting the resolution, and also agreed with
Bruce Tonkin that it would be very difficult to declare an emergency policy
since AGP has been actively practiced for three years. He also pointed out that
what NSI is doing is qualitatively different from what others have been doing.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The Chair considered that it might be, that tasters are prepared to pay
the transaction fee, and, if that is the case, we may consider a resolution
that addresses the issue of front running.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Harald Alvestrand noted that there are two different bad results that
have been discussed here: front running or capturing names from registrants,
and free registration using AGP. Action taken to fix one of them is a good
thing, but we should not forget that both issues should be addressed.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Roberto Gaetano reflected on Susan's motion and the 3 alternatives. He
is not enthusiastic about ICANN imposing a fee on a registration of domain
names even if deleted; however, it appears to be the best or only possible
option. For the reasons stated earlier, Roberto would not support the other two
options. ICANN may step outside its authority with requiring registries to
impose fees and eliminating the AGP in the registry agreements may not be
effective. Taking an ineffective action may be perceived badly. I believe we
need to put in place some actions and messages to explain these actions to
anticipate misperceptions. We need make it clear that we take this financial
measure not in a relationship to a financial perspective of profit or loss but
simply as the best way in order to cure problem for certain large parts of the
Internet community. We need a strong statement of the negative aspects that the
current practice entails and consequences of letting this continue without
attempting to stop it. We will see more creative solutions than NSI's which may
have effects worse than what we are trying to cure. I support the option that
follows a proposal in the budget and in favor of Susan's motion but we need to
enrich our action by communicating clearly to the community why we are doing
this and to anticipate the negative and positive reactions. This communication
should take place when we present the budget and make it obvious to the
community that we are not imposing additional fees on registrants, that this
would not result in an increase in revenue to ICANN.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The Chair requested clean wording of a reworked resolution.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Susan Crawford moved and Steve Goldstein seconded the adoption of the
following resolution:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, the current version of all gTLD registry contracts provides
for a<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>five-calendar-day Add Grace period (AGP) following the initial
registration<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>of a domain during which a domain may be deleted and the sponsoring<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Registrar will be credited for the amount of the registration fee (see,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>e.g.,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-07-01mar06.htm);<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, the AGP was originally created to allow domain names that had
been<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>accidentally registered to be cancelled;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, the practice of "domain tasting," by which names are
registered and<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>then deleted during the AGP, has grown at a very great rate since 2005,
with<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>tens of millions of domains registered and deleted each month;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, it is apparent that the AGP is being used for purposes for
which it<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>was not intended;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, abuse of the AGP is, in the opinion of the majority of
respondents<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>whose statements were collected by the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Tasting (4 October 2007 report), producing disadvantages in the form of<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>consumer confusion and potential fraud that outweigh the benefits of
the<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>AGP;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, the GNSO Council on 31 October 2007 resolved to launch a PDP
on<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections
to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, it is the Board's view that abuses of the AGP should speedily
be<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>halted, while the positive benefits of the AGP to consumers should be<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>retained;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, the positive benefits of the AGP may include, among other
things,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>avoiding fraud and monitoring, testing and development of registrars'<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>provisioning, production and/or merchant gateway systems;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Whereas, the Board believes that the withdrawal of ICANN's waiver of
ICANN's<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>non-refundable transaction fee to the deletion of names within the AGP
will<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>substantially end the practice of abusing the AGP;<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's
budgetary process to<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the
AGP,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN
budget,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 13-0. Bruce Tonkin abstained from voting on this item.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>-----Original Message-----<br>
From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On
Behalf Of Robert F. Connelly<br>
Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2008 12:30 AM<br>
To: Registrars Constituency<br>
Subject: [registrars] Balloting interrupted. Please wait a time with patience.</span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Dear Registrars:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The ballot posted at 16:00 Pacific Time, Sunday, 27 January has been
aborted.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Please disregard the ballot with the following Subject line:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>[RC Voting] Re-Balloting on Domain Tasting, View 1 & View 2 (1st
Call for Votes)<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>The required 72 hours for discussion was inadvertently shortened to
60:01 hours. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>We have received one comment in less than 72 hours. Excom is
determining whether that comment is persuasive, requiring an amendment in the
ballot. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>You shall be notified when the ballot is launched again.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'>Regards, BobC<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoPlainText><font size=2 face="Courier New"><span style='font-size:
10.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>