Re: [ga] Jeff Neuman's Comments on Domain Tasting

["Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik and all,

  I have to agree with Mr. Neumans observations and comments.
And in fact the "ICANN Board Solution" is no solution at all
for the reasons that have already been clearly stated and remarked
upon to date.

Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
   Abraham Lincoln

"Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is
very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt

"If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B;
liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by
P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947]
===============================================================
Updated 1/26/04
CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS.
div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail
jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
My Phone: 214-244-4827

Dominik Filipp wrote:

> Hi all,
>
> some Jeff Neuman's comments on domain tasting from 'Transcript of GNSO
> Council Meeting, Wednesday 13 February 2008, New Delhi, India'; the full
> transcript is here
> http://delhi.icann.org/files/Delhi-GNSOCouncil-13Feb08.txt
>
> Worth reading...
>
> ">>JEFF NEUMAN: So here's my general comment.
> Most of you know me, I was on the council many years back and I don't
> tend to mince words. But, I think I could state that the work that has
> been done to date on domain tasting is exactly the reason why the
> council needs to be reformed and reformed dramatically. What you guys
> have done is nothing close to resembling a bottoms-up process.
> Everything that you have done since the formation of the ad hoc group
> has been nothing but the involvement of councillors and the design team,
> is nothing more than a few like-minded individuals, who I have not -- I
> like as people, but they are very like minded. They worked hard on this
> motion, not to take anything away from the work that was done. But it is
> not in any way bottoms-up.
> What needs to happen, and I read the preliminary report, and I read the
> final report. And no where did I see any mention of this particular
> motion put out for public comment.  Any decision by the council on this
> issue, especially because it involves, a, quote, consensus policy, needs
> to have extensive input on this particular motion by the public.  It
> needs to have impact statements.
> And so, even, Avri, tabling it to the next meeting, I would say, is
> quite aggressive, since I don't think even that's enough time for the
> public to comment.
> Now, you might think, well, why am I up here complaining about the
> motion, because the motion is pretty much the exact proposal that
> Neustar put in. And that's probably why you should take it very
> seriously, because we do oppose the way that this is being handled. Not
> the substance, necessarily, for Neustar as a registry, but remember,
> every registry is different.
> In fact, many of the registries for which you would seek to apply this
> consensus policy, don't even have an add-grace period. Or, don't even
> have one that's required in their contracts.  So that needs to be
> considered.
> Plus, there are other business models that other registries have, for
> which this type of motion would not be appropriate.
> For example, dot name has a free trial period.  Now, because of the
> unique circumstances of their registry, they do not have domain tasting
> like you see in other registries.
> Yes, we all see domain tasting in dot com.  And, yes, it's perceived by
> a lot of people to be a problem.  And, yes, a lot of people in the
> community want to do something about it. But let's not let the
> activities that happen in dot com control the activities that happen in
> every other registry.
> We may be small, and I'm not talking about size right now, but please,
> please, do not think that we're all alike.
> And, finally, the last point that I have is, on process as well, and
> that is the council's motion on October 30th or 31st, whenever that was
> passed, to recommend to the ICANN staff and board to examine applying a
> fee.
> That is another example of a proposal that never went out to the
> community for public comment.
> And, unfortunately, and this is a comment I'll make to the board
> tomorrow, or during the public forum, the board grasped on to this
> motion by the council and took it and ran with it. And, again, it was
> never subject to comment by the community. I'm not saying it's a bad
> idea, I'm just saying you need to build that into the process. If anyone
> has any questions on Neustar's proposal, I'm not sure when the
> appropriate time is, but I'd be happy to talk about why we got to what
> we did; why we got to the percentages we did, because I hear that's been
> debated by people in the council.
> So any information you want, I'm around, now or afterwards to discuss."
>
> ...
>
> ">>JEFF NEUMAN:  Thanks. I just want to make a comment. I think it was
> Mike that said that we want both this motion passed and the ICANN fee.
> At least with respect to Neustar, our funnel request is put in there to
> effectively end the tasting in dot biz. If our end hypothesis is correct
> that it does end tasting, all an ICANN fee would do on top of that is
> punish, quote, the legitimate deletes. I know you use the language here
> and others as Elliot addressed don't think there are legitimate deletes
> as a registry -- I will not give you confidential information about
> registrars can, but we constantly get requests from registrars because
> their system has been compromised because a reseller came in and
> registered a ton of names that they want to delete during the five-day
> period or even afterwards in certain circumstances because they have
> been taken over.
> When registrars and registries provide you evidence and we have provided
> you some evidence in the ad hoc group and others, you can't just take
> that evidence and say your gut doesn't agree with it because that's not
> the basis of policy making.
> And I've seen so many discussions back and forth as to what the number
> -- what the percentage is of, quote, legitimate deletes.  In dot biz we
> submitted something, evidence to you and, yet, I still see debates not
> based on any kind of reality but just "I just feel that number is too"
> or "I feel that number is too low." Provide the evidence. If you can
> show us evidence that counters what we have put in, great. If you can't,
> I'm sorry, I don't want to be so blunt, but I don't care about someone's
> gut. I care about evidence..."
>
> Dominik