RE: [registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jay. Actually, by posting the motion I guess I was volunteering.
What we need is a position statement more or less. We've discussed over
and over among ourselves, had two ICANN workshops, and the GNSO ad hoc
WG on it. I don't think any more discussion or debate is going to change
any of our views.

So that's why I proposed the statement. And I'm pretty open to
amendments. I just want it to represent our views accurately. It has two
seconds, just needs one more and we can be in the formal 14 day
discussion window. Can I take your comment below as a second?


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement
From: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun, November 11, 2007 7:08 pm
To: "Ross Rader" <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Tim Ruiz"
<tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

I think Tim Ruiz did a great job summarizing it.

Tim you available to do it?

On 11/10/07, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx > wrote:
The motions and discussion make this out to be more complicated than 
the work requires. At this point, the Council has requested that we
appoint someone to compile a report of the constituency views. This
person need not represent our interests in any forum as the Council
has chosen to use an open working group format in which there are no 
specific constituency representatives - anyone interested can
participate.

The important thing now is to create this report that captures the
views of the constituency. Whomever we appoint should be free to use 
whatever means appropriate to solicit and record these views.

On 9-Nov-07, at 5:32 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:

>
> Tim,
>> The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority 
>> support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting.
> This puts a (process) conclusion ahead of any (policy) ballot. I
> suggest not making (process) comments, after all, in theory we could
> reach a two-thirds position among the voting RC members.
>
> I think we should put the stability and security issue up front.
> Phish live for days, and the volume of tasting registrations makes
> it wicked difficult to create mechanisms which rely upon this
> critical temporal property -- registrations in the first tens of
> hours of life -- to detect and change A records used in Phish. Part
> of the energy for WHOIS comes from the claim that without WHOIS 
> Phish can't be caught. We don't want to make that belief more
> credible than it already is.
>
> I'll talk to the anti-Phish TF folks and get back to the RC, unless
> someone already has some text ready to go. 
>
> Eric
>

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow." 
- Erik Nupponen








-- 
Jay Westerdal
CEO, Name Intelligence
www.domaintools.com
http://blog.domaintools.com (Corporate Blog)
206.866.5090 (Cell)