[ga] GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting - Lack of Public Comment Consideration

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear GNSO Council Members,

The current GNSO Final Report on Domain Tasting issued on 4 Apr, 2008 is
written in a one-sided manner preferring the last drafted motion based
on 10% AGP cap. Different views are compared and elaborated on from the
position whether there exists at least some support towards that motion.

The wordings describing different views in the document preferring a
tougher measure is often of form "the comment/view/proposal, though
preferring a tougher measure such as eliminating the AGP, is also
supporting this option". Examples of such belittling can be found in
many places in the document.

On page 6 enumerating different views it reads:

"2. Views on eliminating the AGP entirely. Many of the proponents of the
draft resolution would have preferred to see the elimination of the AGP
but are supporting the resolution language as a compromise, recognizing
that many registrars and registries view the AGP as extremely valuable
for a number of reasons. Others in the broader ICANN community do
continue to support elimination of the AGP as the only way to eliminate
domain tasting. Many registrars and registries caution that eliminating
the AGP would be an extreme measure with many negative implications that
will not eliminate domain tasting, only remove the ability to exploit
the AGP for domain tasting."

That is, if a stronger measure to take is presented and none support
towards the 10% AGP cap motion is demonstrated, the arguments of
Registrars and Registries are immediately offered as contra-arguments.

The public comments and opinions expressed during the official GNSO
survey are neglected or trivialized in the document as well. They are
mentioned in just few sentences.

An example of flagrant ignorance of the public comments is on page 35
"Additional analysis:" where the whole public comment analysis is
compressed into one single sentence

"Concerns about the need for stepped up enforcement. DF, JW, CADNA"

whereas the following paragraph regarding the 10% AGP cap motion is
elaborated on in a much more detail

"There were specific recommendations to change certain provisions in the
draft motion, as follows:
- In the clause that states: "During any given month, an Applicable gTLD
Operator may not offer any refund to a registrar for any domain names
deleted during the AGP that exceed (i) 10% of that registrar's net new
registrations in that month", change "may not" to "shall not". INTA, HL,
Dell
- Provide specific guidance as to the meaning of "regularly" in
paragraph 1.b of the motion, regarding the frequency of circumstance
that would not be considered extraordinary. INTA, Dell
- Require public disclosure of information that is required to be
reported by applicable gTLD operators. INTA
- Establish time frames for implementation. INTA"

Some of us on the GA list considering the results of the GNSO survey,
have been working hard to collect facts, evidence and possible drawbacks
and loopholes in the current draft motion, and were able to collect
arguments that we believe are at least as strong and convincing as those
provided by Registrars/Registries. Some of them are briefly mentioned
(page 35, point 2) in the document but not explained or elaborated on
more in detail.

I, therefore, urgently ask the GNSO Council to amend the current Final
Report in a more objective manner and, namely, to incorporate and
address the findings collected on the domain-tasting comment list and
the GA list, as well as to seriously consider the results of the GNSO
survey. The amended document should be issued before the scheduled 17
April GNSO meeting.

Regards

Dominik Filipp, a GA list member