<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement.
- To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement.
- From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2007 00:29:25 -0800
- In-reply-to: <20071109143633.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.71c152113d .wbe@email.secureserver.net>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- References: <20071109143633.4a871ae7d05d2c98d9abb595d392cd69.71c152113d.wbe@email.secureserver.net>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html>
<body>
At 02:36 PM 11/9/2007 Friday -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">The Registrars Constituency (RC)
has not reached Supermajority <br>
support for <font color="#FF0000">a particular position on Domain Name
Tasting. </font>Below <br>
are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members.
</blockquote><br>
Dear Tim: Regarding the second paragraph of your motion, quoted
above, there has been no vote, so how could there be a
"supermajority", a simple majority or a rejection by a
majority? I contest your motion for the simple reason that there
has been no attempt to test "a particular position on Domain Name
Tasting". <br><br>
On the other hand, please consider the following quotation on this list
by Laura Mather of MarkMonitor. <br><br>
<x-tab> </x-tab>
<a href="http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pdf"; eudora="autourl">
http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pdf<br>
<br>
</a>Please refer to the last paragraph of page one, which reads as
follows:<br><br>
It is generally perceived that the great majority of domain name tasting
is performed by a <br>
small number of registrars who exist specifically to amass and maintain
tasting portfolios. <br>
Typically,<font color="#FF0000"> these registrars do not offer
registration services to the public.<br><br>
</font>end quote:<br><br>
If the above paragraph is correct, and other members have posted comments
that the report is fair and objective, then one would expect that a
supermajority of our members *could* find a position they can
support.<br><br>
Let me quote one member's posting on the "Anti-Phishing Working
Group" report:<br><br>
Laura,<br><br>
All kidding aside, I think this was a solid objective
report.<br><br>
Good job.<br><br>
Best regards,<br><br>
Tom Barrett<br>
EnCirca, Inc<br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
I supported the original draft of Tim's motion, which he vetted
before Excom on 8 November, the day before he posted the present motion
to the members. It reads, in part, as follows:<br><br>
The position of the Registrars Constituency regarding Domain Name Tasting
is stated below. It was approved by the Constituency with a vote in which
X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X
abstentions.<br><br>
The Registrars Constituency (RC) of ICANN's GNSO takes the following
position regarding the activity of Domain Name Tasting
(Tasting).<br><br>
1. The RC is in general agreement that Tasting should be curbed if not
eliminated altogether:<br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
However, after discussion with others in Excom, Tim emasculated his
original excellent motion with the present meaningless wording,
"Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority <br>
support for <font color="#FF0000">a particular position on Domain Name
Tasting." <br><br>
</font>How can we reconcile the above with the following?:<br><br>
X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X
abstentions.<br><br>
It is my strong position that we should support *no* position to GNSO
until we have had a proper plebiscite for this issue.<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|