[registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Reposting to the correct list as per our rules (thanks Bob).

All, as you may know the GNSO Council voted to initiate a PDP on domain
name tasting last week in LA (our Councilors of course voted against
it). As a result, we have been asked to submit a position statement.
Since this issue has been discussed repeatedly among ourselves at
various meetings, in two ICANN Workshops, and within the recent Ad Hoc
WG, I believe the Registrar positions are clear.

I have put together the following statement that I feel reflects our
views. If it receives the necessary endorsements it will remain posted
for a 14 day discussion period during which we can refine the views
expressed to be sure they are reflected fully and accurately (for
example, other bullets to add to View 2).

Tim

I move that we accept the following as the RC position statement and
submit it to the GNSO Council as such:

The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority 
support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. Below 
are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members. 

View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not 
eliminated altogether for one or more of the following reasons:

a. Tasting is causing general confusion among registrants and 
potential registrants trying to register domain names.

b. Tasting is eroding consumer confidence in the security and 
trustworthiness of domain name registration services and our 
industry in general.

c. Tasting is causing an increase in support costs for Registrars.

d. Tasting violates well-established codes of conduct and good 
practice intended to ensure security and stability by:

i. disturbing the stability of a set of existing services that 
had been functioning satisfactorily, namely the competitive 
domain name registration services developed by Registrars;

ii. disturbing other existing systems and value added services, 
for example those relying on Zone files, and various third party 
WHOIS services;

iii. increasing costs that must be absorbed by others not 
participating in or benefiting from Tasting.

e. Despite the long held tenet of "First do no harm," there has 
been no research, testing for potential disruption of existing 
services, public review, or comment prior to this high volume 
activity abruptly occurring in the DNS.

In summary, high volume Tasting activity has undermined expectations 
about reliable behavior and in so doing has reduced trust in the 
security and stability of the system and has increased costs for 
registrars, registrants, and others not participating in the 
activity.

View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter 
of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN for one or more of the 
following reasons:

a. Tasting takes place due to market demand, and the market 
should be allowed to evolve as demand dictates.

b. ICANN is not a regulatory body, and according to its own 
bylaws, coordinates policy development reasonably and 
appropriately related to technical functions of the DNS. ICANN 
should not be regulating market activity.

Notwithstanding the above, the RC is in near unanimous agreement that 
sun-setting the Add Grace Period (AGP) is not an appropriate action 
should the GNSO decide to address Tasting activity. Many Registrars 
who do not participate in Tasting use the AGP in various ways not 
related to Tasting, as detailed in section 4.4 of the Outcomes Report 
of the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name Tasting. Report found here:

http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf

Sun-setting the AGP would unnecessarily put additional burdens and 
costs on Registrars and Registrants using the AGP for these 
non-Tasting reasons.

To the extent that the GNSO should decide to recommend policy or 
actions with the intent of curbing or eliminating Tasting activity, 
RC members are in general agreement that:

Preferred - The GNSO should recommend that ICANN make the 
transactional fee component of the variable Registrar fees apply to 
all new registrations except for a reasonable number that are deleted 
within the AGP. Implementation time for Registrars would be negligible.

Acceptable but not preferred - The GNSO should encourage gTLD 
Registries to only allow AGP refunds on a reasonable number of new 
registrations, noting that such action is affective only if all gTLD 
registries apply it, and do so in a reasonably consistent manner. 
Implementation time for Registrars could be substantial depending on 
how each Registry decided to define their policy. If Registrars need to 
modify their systems and/or services a minimum of 90-days advance 
notice should be given.

Note that neither of the above actions requires new policy or 
modifications to existing policy. Therefore the RC, regardless of their 
view, is generally opposed to a PDP on this issue.