RE: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement [Tim Ruiz's motion].

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Paul.  It looks like Tim's motion, but I'll defer to him to
confirm. 

For what it's worth, based on our discussions in San Juan and LA, as
well as the work of the last GNSO Tasting WG, I think that it is
accurate to state that many registrars have argued that ICANN shouldn't
do anything about tasting.  It also is accurate to state many registrars
have argued that ICANN should do something.  It is clear that the RC
membership is split on whether ICANN should anything.  There has been
almost unanimity in our discussions, however, against the proposed total
elimination of the Add Grace Period (AGP) recommended by some of the
other constituencies.  

Therefore, I agree with Tim that the RC should avoid advocating that
ICANN should take specific action against tasting.  I think that our
statement should focus on opposing the elimination of the AGP -- an
issue almost all of us agrees on.  Some may call this emasculation, I
call it consensus building.  There will be no shortage of statements
from other constituencies opposing the practice of tasting.  Moreover,
if individual registrars or a group of registrars want to file a letter
in favor or opposed to tasting during a public comment period, they may
do so.  I just don't think that we should use the RC as that vehicle
considering the split we have on the issue.

I also suggest that anyone with specific comments gets them to Tim asap.

Finally, for those who have not yet paid your dues, please get them in
asap.  Late notices are going out this week.      

Thanks again.

Jon 

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Goldstone [mailto:paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 2:45 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Registrar Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position
Statement [Tim Ruiz's motion].

Jon,

Thank you for clarifying the process in simple terms.  It looks like 
you sent this before I even suggested it.

As for the motion itself, please confirm that the text pasted below is 
the current motion for comments.

If that is the case, do you think it would be appropriate to start it 
with a description of what Domain Tasting actually is?

Also, please clarify about "View 2".  Is it correct to state in the 
motion that "Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a 
matter of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN" before we have 
gotten a vote on whether that is the case or not?

Thanks again.

~Paul
:DomainIt


========================================================================
=====
Current Domain Tasting Motion?
========================================================================
=====

>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.
========================================================================
=====



At 02:11 PM 11/14/2007, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

>RC Members:
>
>I have received a number of questions on our process for a motion.
>
>Here is a link to the RC Rules of Procedure governing motions:
>
>http://www.icannregistrars.org/Registrar_Constituency_Rules_of_Procedur
e
>
>Here's where we are:
>
>We have been asked by the GNSO to provide a constituency statement on
>the tasting issue.  
>
>Tim has offered a motion for such a statement.  His motion has received
>the required three endorsements (Tom, Adrian & Bob).  If Bob wants to
>revoke his endorsement, I would be happy to endorse the motion for
>consideration by the RC.
>
>Bob has offered an amendment to the motion.  Tim had the option of
>accepting the amendment as friendly and it would have become part of
the
>motion.  As Tim has rejected the amendment, it is considered
unfriendly.
>Bob's amendment now requires one endorsement in order to be on the
>ballot with the underlying motion.
>
>I will restart the minimum fourteen day discussion period as of today.
>At any point during this period, a member may offer any other amendment
>to Tim.  If he accepts the amendment, it would become part of the
>underlying motion.  Tim has stated that he is open to friendly
>amendments.  I suggest that those of you who want to propose some
>changes work directly with Tim.  
>
>At some point after the fourteen days, Bob will create and publish a
>draft ballot for members to review.  The ballot will contain the
motion,
>as well as any unfriendly amendments that receive the required
>endorsement from a second member.  
>
>I hope that this helps to clarify the process, so that we can turn to
>the substance of the proposal.  It would be great if we could have a
>statement that reflects a consensus of the RC.  Please keep in mind
that
>we all individually will have the opportunity to offer our own comments
>on the issue during the public comment period.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jon
>
>