ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [council] Issues Report on Domain Tasting

  • To: Maria Farrell <maria.farrell@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [council] Issues Report on Domain Tasting
  • From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 29 May 2007 13:18:13 -0400
  • Cc: "'Council GNSO'" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • In-reply-to: <004601c7a209$aa1819a0$0ec6f6d5@scarlet>
  • Organization: Tucows Inc.
  • References: <004601c7a209$aa1819a0$0ec6f6d5@scarlet>
  • Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Thunderbird (Macintosh/20070326)

Maria Farrell wrote:
Dear Council members,
Attached is the Issues Report on Domain Name Tasting requested by the At-Large Advisory Committee on 9 May (http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03474.html). Best regards, Maria Farrell

As a backgrounder, this document is very useful. Thank you very much.

I would like to better understand what the policy implications are however. As contrast, when we voted to initiated the Transfers PDP, we understood that domain name portability was desirable, and that policy action was required to preserve and augment domain name portability. We are able to measure the success of that policy development process by examining the degree to which domain name portability has been preserved and enhanced.

However, after reading this document, I do not understand what the policy implications are related to domain tasting. Is this an availability issue? An economic one? Are there privacy implications? Intellectual property concerns? Before I can vote to proceed with a PDP on this subject, I would like to reasonably understand what the objectives and drivers are, but unfortunately, this issues report doesn't really give me enough of a sense of the issues to guess at what the policy outcomes might look like.


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>