RE: [ga] Some Remarks on Domain Tasting

[Liz Gasster <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>]

Just to confirm, the correction process is underway.  The corrected summary has 
been posted: http://forum.icann.org/lists/dt-motion-21may08/msg00014.html

The domain tasting public comments forum page will be updated shortly so that 
the link to the public comments summary links to the corrected document.

Liz Gasster
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 5:23 AM
To: Dominik Filipp; icann board address
Cc: ga
Subject: RE: [ga] Some Remarks on Domain Tasting


Earlier this week, I submitted a request (copied below) to staff
regarding the first sentence of Analysis, point 2.  It is my
understanding that the correction process is underway.

-*-

While I cannot speak for all of my fellow Councilors who voted in
support of the motion, I can assure you that the IPC's support of the
motion and the votes of GNSO Councilors representing the IPC does not
mean that the IPC accepts "the legitimacy of the Registrars Constituency
argument that eliminating the AGP entirely would unnecessarily and
unfairly burden Registrars and Registrants."  In fact, the IPC's
December 2007 Constituency Impact Statement specifically rejects the
legitimacy of those arguments (see pages 3-4 of that statement).  I
request that the summary and analysis be revised to eliminate this
faulty assumption, that the correction be posted, and that, to the
extent the current summary and analysis has been provided to the Board,
that a corrected summary and analysis be provided to them.

-*-

Kristina

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
Of Dominik Filipp
Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 4:23 AM
To: icann board address
Cc: ga
Subject: [ga] Some Remarks on Domain Tasting


Dear ICANN Board Director,

Let me collect and present some thoughts and personal observations
regarding how I see the Domain Tasting issue has been dealt with during
the PDP process at the GNSO. You might perhaps be interesting in viewing
the situation from a slightly different perspective than that officially
recorded in the related GNSO documents. This post is written in my
personal capacity.

As we already know, currently there are three possible ways how to deal
with domain tasting, $0.20 fee for all registrations, 10% AGP cap
(preferred by the GNSO), and, finally, the entire AGP elimination.
During the GNSO discussion in the GNSO Domain Tasting Ad-Hoc Group the
first two were preferred to the latter one. The AGP elimination, despite
the fact it was supported as the most preferred suggestion in the
official GNSO public survey (110 votes, 64%) and also supported by some
GNSO constituencies as well as ALAC, did not seem to become subject to
proper and transparent deliberation within the GNSO. The only attempts,
as far as I have noticed during tracking the Ad-Hoc mailing list, were
those of Kristina Rosette's who was trying to focus the discussion on
this for a certain while. However, after not having gained sufficient
interest within the Ad-Hoc group, Kristina eventually desisted from
further attempts. At least, it seems so.


1. Who is Domain Tasting Solution Addressed to?

The domain tasting motion was initiated by the ALAC initiative
reflecting the overall long-lasting public outrage constantly facing the
negative consequences of the practice. That is, it is the public
community that raised the problem in the first place and it is,
therefore, the target audience to which the solution should be
addressed. Other entities, such as Registries and Registrars (except few
Registrars, e.g. GoDaddy) either do not see the domain tasting
phenomenon a problem at all or not that of remarkable importance.

However, in the current Summary/Analysis of Comments

http://forum.icann.org/lists/dt-motion-21may08/msg00012.html

in section Analysis it reads

"2. Modifying vs. eliminating the AGP. The consensus within the GNSO to
recommend modifying rather than eliminating the AGP accepts the
legitimacy of the Registrars Constituency argument that eliminating the
AGP entirely would unnecessarily and unfairly burden Registrars and
Registrants using the AGP for legitimate (non-Tasting) purposes."

And I see a serious problem here. Despite the fact the wide public
community, as being the victim of the practice, should have significant
say on this issue, they are Registrars Constituency arguments
(concerning the AGP elimination) that were taken into account in the
first place. The five arguments mentioned by the Registrars Constituency
therein have never been given an official opportunity to be discussed
and opposed by the public (in form of an active working group within the
GNSO, e.g.), although there exists a number of remarkable posts
scattered in several mailing lists addressing the alleged AGP legitimacy
(see the related comments on the official domain tasting related mailing
lists at the GNSO, posts on the GA, ALAC, and NA-Discuss lists), which
does not seem to be in accordance with the Core Values, Section 2, Par.
7:
"7. Employing open and transparent policy development mechanisms that
(i) promote well-informed decisions based on expert advice, and (ii)
ensure that those entities most affected can assist in the policy
development process."


2. Counter-arguments in a Nutshell

Basically, the counter-arguments collected from various posts can be
summarized into the following three points

1. The AGP benefit for Registrants is negligible. The most AGP features
enumerated by the Registrars Constituency are not available to the
public on a larger scale, if at all. For example, I have never come
across any Registrar/Reseller offering the typo correction. I have found
just two Registrars offering domain deletes during the AGP to the
public, Dynadot and Moniker (which, of course, are mostly exploited for
speculative purposes). In general, when comparing the pros and cons from
the Registrant perspective taking the domain tasting abuse into account,
the result is highly unbalanced.

2. The AGP gives Registrars a privilege over other online businesses.
Other online businesses know how to solve the problems without using
such a privilege and can live and function well. The AGP concept would
theoretically be acceptable if no such a colossal abuse has been
accompanying it.

3. The reimplementation problems related to the AGP elimination at
Registrars can be overcome. In fact, Registrars not only know how to
overcome them but they even do it on daily basis. How? Exactly the same
way as they currently deal with country-code ccTLDs with no AGP
applicable.

The GNSO refused an active public participation on the issue. I mean an
active participation during the process, not the public comment period.
I sent two mails to the GNSO, one asking to open a third motion
addressing the AGP elimination to achieve a balance in discussing all
the three possibilities

http://forum.icann.org/lists/domain-tasting-motion/msg00026.html

and the second one, also asking to establish a GNSO Working Group with
public participation

http://forum.icann.org/lists/domain-tasting-motion/msg00052.html

No response.

Yes, I know very well that the GNSO is, by the respective bylaws, not
obligated to open a working group with public participation, or even no
any at all. But it is very surprising to me, that what was possible to
manage for WHOIS working group with wider participation last year, is
not possible to manage now. And I am convinced that domain tasting abuse
is of at least the same importance. I think the public deserves it and
should have a say on it. And, as the target audience, it should have a
significant say.

For example, if such a working group was established, I could have
addressed my detailed analysis of the current final proposal (also
mentioned in the Summary/Analysis of Comments above)

http://forum.icann.org/lists/dt-motion-21may08/msg00008.html

in time. But now, we are in a curious situation when the GNSO supports
by supermajority vote a proposal, which 'as is' has some quite serious
flaws.


3. Getting Summarized

As I see it, we are in a situation when the current final proposal has
gained supermajority vote. That is for sure. It is also for sure that
the public was not given sufficient room (non-existing WG) to actively
participate, elaborate and influence the result. And it is also for sure
that the result having gained the GNSO's supermajority vote is not well
prepared.

Up to now we have

a) The $0.20-fee-for-all-registrations proposal which, in fact, would
most likely not curb the practice and could even raise it due to a new
form of abuse called 'domain tasting for the masses' as I depicted in my
a bit satiric but factual post below. This would just involve ICANN in a
nasty practice, which is surely not desired.

http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga-200709/msg00983.html

b) The current final proposal that gained the GNSO supermajority vote
discussed above.

c) The AGP elimination has not been properly discussed yet but is
capable of eliminating not only Domain Tasting but also Front-Running
and 5-day based speculative Micro-Auctions. All in one step.
Effectively, with no disproportionate expenses, and with no ICANN
oversight needed. For me personally, by far the best and simplest
solution.

By not considering and discussing all the three possibilities properly
and on equal basis, we do not know how the optimal solution should look
like.

*  *  *

In my honest opinion, the only accountable decision made by the Board
would be revert the Domain Tasting issue status to 'in-progress' and ask
the GNSO Council to open a Working Group reiterating the issue with
public participation.


Kind regards

Dominik Filipp, a GNSO GA list member