<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.
- To: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2008 15:54:27 -0700
- Cc: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Registrars Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- List-id: registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Sender: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.12.18
<html><body><div>Paul and Ross, appreciate your comments and concerns. The motion was posted for discussion, comment, and amendment for 14 days. The only individual offering an amendment was Bob Connelly, and it was included as an alternate given it's structure and couldn't be deemed friendly (incorporated in the motion) for that reason. Having these comments during that period would certainly have been helpful.</div>
<div> </div>
<div><BR>Tim <BR><BR><BR></div>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to<BR>Voting Members.<BR>From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, January 11, 2008 1:09 pm<BR>To: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Registrars<BR>Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx><BR><BR><BR>Ross,<BR><BR>I have been anxious to see your follow up as I too have been really <BR>troubled over this ballot. While I want to be a part of an RC <BR>statement on this matter, at this point I am about out of time and am <BR>only comfortable with approving the ammendment - to take a vote on the <BR>RC members' position on domain tasting. I'd appreciate some feedback <BR>(from anyone) on some of my thoughts.<BR><BR>My first thought is that the ballot should start with an agreed <BR>description on !
what we feel domain tasting to be (possibly by way of a <BR>vote). Otherwise it's left open to opinion on what uses of the AGP we <BR>are discussing and consider to be tasting.<BR><BR>Another concern is that there are a number of places throughout the <BR>ballot that claim an opinion without having taken a vote. I don't see <BR>the value of sending a statement that has not been substantiated by <BR>taking a vote, and that is already covered a lot better by some of the <BR>other groups so far anyway.<BR><BR>For example, the ballot claims that the RC is in general agreement for <BR>the "Preferred" and "Acceptable but not Preferred" recommendations. I <BR>don't completely agree with the "Acceptable but not Preferred" <BR>recommendation as stated, and don't recall a vote being held to <BR>determine if the RC was indeed in general agreement. Also, could <BR>someone please clarify what PDP stands for in the following statement? <BR>"Therefore the RC, regardless of their view, is !
generally opposed to <BR>a PDP on this issue"<BR><BR>Another example i
s the two views at the beginning of the motion that <BR>start with "Many registrars believe that...". Again, without taking a <BR>vote, I think it would be more accurate to say "Some registrars <BR>believe that..." I'm not trying to split hairs here but how many <BR>registrars constitute "many"? IOW, what percentage of total <BR>registrars have stated that they agree with either view? Perhaps this <BR>is just my opinion but I feel that when people read that, it could <BR>come across that it's an even (or close to even) split between <BR>registrars that agree with domain tasting those that do not. Is that the case?<BR><BR>Personally I think we should jump ahead to the amendment and take a <BR>vote. If the majority disagrees with domain tasting then we submit it <BR>along with a statement, and if the majority agrees with domain tasting <BR>then we pretend we didn't vote. Of course I'm joking. I do think we <BR>should have taken a vote first though.<BR><BR>I also think it's imp!
ortant to keep reminding people by including a <BR>comment that the overwhelming majority of domain tasting is done by a <BR>select few companies.<BR><BR>Regarding view #2, I am fine that there are opposing opinions, but <BR>from a personal level I don't understand why "many registrars" believe <BR>that domain tasting is due to market demand. So far as I understand <BR>it, a small number of companies use domain tasting to register <BR>millions of domains, add PPC pages, and keep the ones that make money. <BR>I'd be interested to hear from the many registrars with view #2 as to <BR>how that relates to market demand.<BR><BR>I also don't understand the second statement of view #2 that states <BR>that ICANN should not be regulating market activity. "Market <BR>activity" doesn't seem an appropriate description if it's just a few <BR>companies. IMO "most" domain tasting nowadays is the use of a <BR>loophole, and bottom line is that if everyone tasted domains for PPC <BR>monetizat!
ion, and/or tasted domains by default as a method of layaway <BR>shopp
ing with no fees and no limits, there'd be no domains for the <BR>registrants that actually want to eat, at the expense of everyone but <BR>the tasters. Who if not ICANN should fix the loophole? If the answer <BR>to that question is Verisign that I've heard in the past, then why <BR>isn't that clarified in view #2? Is it that registrars with view #2 <BR>don't want "anyone" to regulate this, or that they just don't want the <BR>GNSO and ICANN to regulate it?<BR><BR>Finally, as you all know, layaway tasting by use of the AGP is a hot <BR>topic right now. Although I disagree with the way the 'pioneer' in <BR>this service has handled it, I do feel that it has some merit, so long as...<BR><BR>a) the customers actively choose to put the domain on layaway.<BR>b) the registrar (and in turn the registrant) is charged a small fee <BR>for the transaction.<BR><BR>So, for my two cents, I think that a possible solution is to provide <BR>AGP at no charge for a percentage of total registrat!
ions for any given <BR>registrar (for testing, fraud and errors), and anything above that <BR>should be charged a reduced fee. What registrars do with AGP after <BR>that is up to each of them, but at least then it'd be a legitimate and <BR>paid service rather than a free for all.<BR><BR>I understand that it's very late to be making these comments, but I've <BR>really been struggling with this ballot and I'll try to voice my <BR>opinions sooner in future.<BR><BR>~Paul<BR>:DomainIt<BR><BR><BR><BR>At 01:47 PM 1/4/2008, Ross Rader wrote:<BR><BR>>Happy new year Bob! (and everyone else).<BR>><BR>>To be honest, I find the whole ballot very confusing. While I agree <BR>>with some aspects of what is stated, I find other elements of the <BR>>motion very troubling. I don't believe that I can vote in favor of the <BR>>motion without somehow endorsing elements of the statement that I <BR>>fundamentally disagree with.<BR>><BR>>As such, I will be voting against !
this motion. Time permitting, I will <BR>>send something along to t
he list outlining exactly what our position <BR>>and preferences on this subject are.<BR>><BR>>On 4-Jan-08, at 11:56 AM, Robert F. Connelly wrote:<BR>><BR>>>Dear Registrars: The ballot on the motion has been sent to the <BR>>>Voting Members List. If you are other than the voting member of a <BR>>>dues paying registrar, you may want to be sure that your voting <BR>>>member received the ballot.<BR>>><BR>>>The ballot will remain open until midnight GMT, 11 January 2008. A <BR>>>second and third ballot will be sent between now and the closing of <BR>>>the ballot. Voting members may vote several times but any secondary <BR>>>ballots overwrite the prior ballots. The final results will be open <BR>>>for all to see.<BR>>><BR>>>For your convenience, the Main Motion and the Unfriendly Amendment <BR>>>are posted at the following URL:<BR>>><BR>>> <A href="http://icannregistrars.org/Talk!
:ICANN_Registrars" target=_blank mce_href="http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars";>http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars</A><BR>>><BR>>>I call your attention to the following "preamble" to the Main Motion:<BR>>><BR>>>The Motion: Move that the Registrar Constituency approve the <BR>>>following statement as Registrar Constituency Statement on Domain <BR>>>Tasting: The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached <BR>>>Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name <BR>>>Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC <BR>>>members.<BR>>><BR>>>end quote:<BR>>><BR>>>Searching our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure, I do not find a <BR>>>definition for "Supermajority" nor any reference to a <BR>>>"Supermajority". It *is* clear that any amendment to the By-Laws <BR>>>requires a 66% majority. However, the ICANN By-Laws make multiple <!
BR>>>references to Supermajority.<BR>>><BR>>>Article
16, Additional Definitions states "'Supermajority Vote' <BR>>>means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members <BR>>>present at a meeting of the applicable body".<BR>>><BR>>>Those who drafted the Registrar Constituency By-Laws and Rules of <BR>>>Procedure were opposed to our earlier use of "straw ballots". They <BR>>>insisted that no one promulgate *any* position to our Constituency <BR>>>that was not supported by a vote taken when a quorum of voting <BR>>>members was present. I believe that, until our last two meetings, <BR>>>we have not ever had a quorum of voting members present at a <BR>>>meeting, neither "live" nor by teleconference. Thus, we have relied <BR>>>upon the written ballot. Our Rules of Procedure give us clear <BR>>>instructions on how we are to ballot on motions. This present <BR>>>ballot complies with those instructions.<BR>>><BR>>>So, when voting on th!
e motion and the unfriendly amendment, keep in <BR>>>mind that positions of the Registrar Constituency *do_not* require a <BR>>>66% majority and that, until now, we have not taken *any* vote on <BR>>>whether domain tasting is "good, bad or indifferent". Till now, it <BR>>>has been all talk, no vote.<BR>>><BR>>>The Main Motion does not actually define the position of the <BR>>>Constituency. It *is* a clear and carefully drafted statement of <BR>>>two opposing "Views" of "many registrars". If the majority of <BR>>>ballots cast for the *Amendment* are favourable, there will be a <BR>>>second ballot which will seek determine whether the Constituency <BR>>>supports one or the other View described by the Main Motion.<BR>>><BR>>>Respectfully submitted,<BR>>>Bob Connelly<BR>>>Secretary<BR>><BR>>Ross Rader<BR>>Director, Retail Services<BR>>t. 416.538.5492<BR>>c. 416.828.8783<BR>&!
gt;<A href="http://www.domaindirect.com"; target=_blank mce_href="http:
//www.domaindirect.com">http://www.domaindirect.com</A><BR>><BR>>"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."<BR>>- Erik Nupponen<BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|