RE: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement.

[tim@xxxxxxxxxxx]

Bob, perhaps you could propose an amendment to the motion stating what
you believe to be the majority view as explained below. I would not
accept it as friendly, but then it could at least be voted on separately
with the motion itself. Also, if you have a suggested working change to
the *supermajority* comment please propose it.

My original motion was certainly my own preferred view. However, Jon and
others on the ExCom gently pushed back reminding me that there was
clearly another view that *many* registrars have regarding tasting. As I
reflected on that, and looked back at my meeting notes, the transcripts
of the workshops, etc. I realized they were right and I believe the
revised motion more accurately captures the RC views.

You are right, no previous vote has taken place, and if there is better
wording for the motion I am open to it.

Best,
Tim


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position
Statement.
From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, November 14, 2007 1:29 am
To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

At 02:36 PM 11/9/2007 Friday  -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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. 
Dear Tim:  Regarding the second paragraph of your motion, quoted above,
there has been no vote, so how could there be a "supermajority", a
simple majority or a rejection by a majority?  I contest your motion for
the simple reason that there has been no attempt to test "a particular
position on Domain Name Tasting". 

On the other hand, please consider the following quotation on this list
by Laura Mather of MarkMonitor.  

        
http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pdf

Please refer to the last paragraph of page one, which reads as follows:

It is generally perceived that the great majority of domain name tasting
is performed by a 
small number of registrars who exist specifically to amass and maintain
tasting portfolios. 
Typically, these registrars do not offer registration services to the
public.

end quote:

If the above paragraph is correct, and other members have posted
comments that the report is fair and objective, then one would expect
that a supermajority of our members *could* find a position they can
support.

Let me quote one member's posting on the "Anti-Phishing Working Group"
report:

Laura,

All kidding aside,  I think this was a solid objective report.

Good job.

Best regards,

Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc

end quote:

I supported the original draft of  Tim's motion, which he vetted before
Excom on 8 November, the day before he posted the present motion to the
members.  It reads, in part, as follows:

The position of the Registrars Constituency regarding Domain Name
Tasting is stated below. It was approved by the Constituency with a vote
in which X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X
abstentions.

The Registrars Constituency (RC) of ICANN's GNSO takes the following
position regarding the activity of Domain Name Tasting (Tasting).

1. The RC is in general agreement that Tasting should be curbed if not
eliminated altogether:

end quote:

However, after discussion with others in Excom, Tim emasculated his
original excellent motion with the present meaningless wording,
"Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority 
support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting." 

How can we reconcile the above with the following?:

X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X
abstentions.

It is my strong position that we should support *no* position to GNSO
until we have had a proper plebiscite for this issue.