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

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul,

I believe the motion presents both views.

I also believe the motion presents a singular view on the removal of the
AGP period.

I believe the constituency is to send views to the task force (or
working group or whatever it is called).  This should be inclusive of
all views.

Rob.

-----Original Message-----
From: Paul Goldstone [mailto:paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2007 4:28 PM
To: Rob Hall
Cc: Nevett, Jonathon; Registrar Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Discussion of Motion to adopt Tasting Position
Statement [Tim Ruiz's motion].

Rob,

I think it's great to state all views during discussion.

However, could you (or anyone else) clarify if the final constituency 
statement passed to GNSO will state that there are differing opinions 
on the Domain Tasting issue and here they all are, or will we be 
taking a poll to pass a unified statement based on majority vote?

I'm not sure which method is appropriate at this stage, but based on 
previous constituency statements I was under the impression that it 
would be the latter.

Regards,
~Paul


At 04:13 PM 11/14/2007, Rob Hall wrote:
>Paul,
>
>I think Tim's motion goes a long way to trying to address all of the
>different views held within the constituency.
>
>I can assure you, after listening to many panels on the subject, that
we
>have Registrars on both sides of the fence, and that some would
>absolutely agree with View 2 as well as View 1.  
>
>I think that is why the motion Tim makes is interesting, as it states
>both views.  It does not state which view is held by more or less, but
>rather simply states there are those that hold both views.
>
>Rob.
>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Paul Goldstone
>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_Procedu
r
>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
>>
>>