<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[registrars] Discussion of Main Motion on Tasting and proposed Amendment.
- To: Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [registrars] Discussion of Main Motion on Tasting and proposed Amendment.
- From: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 16 Nov 2007 08:03:04 -0800
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
<html>
<body>
Dear Members I am concerned with the following contents of Tim's
motion, some of which are contradictory:<br><br>
1. From the preamble to Tim's motion, it can be interpreted that
GNSO has already agreed to initiate a PGP.<br><br>
2. Tim's last line says "The RC ... is generally opposed
to a PDP on this issue."<br><br>
Here is the GNSO Resolution on the subject:<br><br>
Resolution #2: Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final
Outcomes Report of the<br>
ad hoc group on Domain Tasting,<br>
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf"; eudora="autourl">
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf</a>
<br>
the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and
pursuant<br>
to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,<br><br>
The GNSO minutes state that all resolutions other than #1
passed.<br><br>
What am I missing? It has been decreed that there *will* be a
Policy Development Process.<br><br>
3. View 2, b. of the Main Motion says ICANN is not a regulatory
body. <br><br>
4. The two paragraphs after "Sun-setting the AGP"
would have GNSO recommending policies to ICANN which would have de-facto
regulatory effects.<br><br>
Paul Goldstone questioned who other than ICANN could "regulate"
tasting:<br><br>
quote:<br><br>
I sent a message to him (Jon) and the constituency list, asking him to
clarify who <font color="#FF0000">(if not ICANN) </font>he expects to
actually <font color="#FF0000">doing something about </font>Domain
Tasting should a decision be made.<br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
In my words, Paul asks *who* is in a position to "do something
about" (regulate?) tasting?<br><br>
If I understand Paul correctly, he thought I should clarify my Amendment
with respect to who has the power to control domain testing.
Comments by John Berryhill and Marcus Faure suggest that the registries
already have such "power".<br><br>
I don't see that my amendment proposes that *anyone* should "do
anything about it". Here is my text:<br><br>
Amendment:<br><br>
Inasmuch as there has been much written on domain tasting and kiting in
the general RC mail list, and,<br><br>
Inasmuch as there has been no definitive work or ballot to find a
consensus or supermajority among ICANN Accredited Registrars, <br><br>
Now, therefore, I move that a vote be taken to determine the position of
the members of the Registrars Constituency on domain tasting <s>and
kiting. <br><br>
</s>end quote:<br><br>
(Perhaps I should omit reference to kiting since it is not mentioned in
the Main Motion.)<br><br>
The text of the Main Motion does not propose
"regulation". Let's look at Tim's two
"Views":<br><br>
View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not
<br>
eliminated altogether ...<br><br>
View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter <br>
of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN ...<br><br>
end quote:<br><br>
My amendment is intended to only *quantify* how many RC Members fall into
View 1 and View 2. As such, I think the intents of Tim's motion and
my proposed amendment are compatible.<br><br>
Paul asks about the term "supermajority. I do not find that
term in our By-Laws or in our Rules of Procedure. Generally
speaking, a supermajority may be 67% or a greater percentage as defined
where that term is used. Perhaps it is found in the GNSO
By-Laws. I used the term in my proposed amendment because Tim used
in the second paragraph of his Main Motion.<br><br>
<br>
Respectfully submitted,<br>
Bob Connelly<br><br>
<br>
</body>
</html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|