RE: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I had growing concerns after our last correspondence and agree that 
I dropped the ball by waiting so late to voice them.  Lesson learned.

BTW, for anyone that didn't know and was curious, I found that PDP 
stands for "Policy Development Process".

~Paul


At 06:28 PM 1/11/2008, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>I know you had some issues with the process (and looks like you were
>right), but you ultimately said the motion was fine and that we should
>proceed with it. Paul had questions that I tried to answer and he later
>said the motion seemed to cover all views and he had no other
>ammendments to suggest.
>
>That said, I agree that the ballot is confusing. We tried to get it as
>clear as possible and still include Bob's proposed amendment (which in
>my view was really a different motion). 
>
>
>Tim 
>
>
>-------- Original Message --------
>Subject: Re: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to
>Voting Members.
>From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
>Date: Fri, January 11, 2008 4:58 pm
>To: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>Cc: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, "Robert F. Connelly"
><BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Registrars Constituency
><registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>
>I originally made these and other comments on the 10th, 14th and 29th 
>of November.
>
>On 11-Jan-08, at 5:54 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>> Tim
>>
>>
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent 
>> to
>> Voting Members.
>> From: Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Fri, January 11, 2008 1:09 pm
>> To: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> Cc: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, Registrars
>> Constituency <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>>
>> Ross,
>>
>> I have been anxious to see your follow up as I too have been really
>> troubled over this ballot. While I want to be a part of an RC
>> statement on this matter, at this point I am about out of time and am
>> only comfortable with approving the ammendment - to take a vote on the
>> RC members' position on domain tasting. I'd appreciate some feedback
>> (from anyone) on some of my thoughts.
>>
>> My first thought is that the ballot should start with an agreed
>> description on what we feel domain tasting to be (possibly by way of a
>> vote). Otherwise it's left open to opinion on what uses of the AGP we
>> are discussing and consider to be tasting.
>>
>> Another concern is that there are a number of places throughout the
>> ballot that claim an opinion without having taken a vote. I don't see
>> the value of sending a statement that has not been substantiated by
>> taking a vote, and that is already covered a lot better by some of the
>> other groups so far anyway.
>>
>> For example, the ballot claims that the RC is in general agreement for
>> the "Preferred" and "Acceptable but not Preferred" recommendations. I
>> don't completely agree with the "Acceptable but not Preferred"
>> recommendation as stated, and don't recall a vote being held to
>> determine if the RC was indeed in general agreement. Also, could
>> someone please clarify what PDP stands for in the following statement?
>> "Therefore the RC, regardless of their view, is generally opposed to
>> a PDP on this issue"
>>
>> Another example is the two views at the beginning of the motion that
>> start with "Many registrars believe that...". Again, without taking a
>> vote, I think it would be more accurate to say "Some registrars
>> believe that..." I'm not trying to split hairs here but how many
>> registrars constitute "many"? IOW, what percentage of total
>> registrars have stated that they agree with either view? Perhaps this
>> is just my opinion but I feel that when people read that, it could
>> come across that it's an even (or close to even) split between
>> registrars that agree with domain tasting those that do not. Is that 
>> the case?
>>
>> Personally I think we should jump ahead to the amendment and take a
>> vote. If the majority disagrees with domain tasting then we submit it
>> along with a statement, and if the majority agrees with domain tasting
>> then we pretend we didn't vote. Of course I'm joking. I do think we
>> should have taken a vote first though.
>>
>> I also think it's important to keep reminding people by including a
>> comment that the overwhelming majority of domain tasting is done by a
>> select few companies.
>>
>> Regarding view #2, I am fine that there are opposing opinions, but
>> from a personal level I don't understand why "many registrars" believe
>> that domain tasting is due to market demand. So far as I understand
>> it, a small number of companies use domain tasting to register
>> millions of domains, add PPC pages, and keep the ones that make money.
>> I'd be interested to hear from the many registrars with view #2 as to
>> how that relates to market demand.
>>
>> I also don't understand the second statement of view #2 that states
>> that ICANN should not be regulating market activity. "Market
>> activity" doesn't seem an appropriate description if it's just a few
>> companies. IMO "most" domain tasting nowadays is the use of a
>> loophole, and bottom line is that if everyone tasted domains for PPC
>> monetization, and/or tasted domains by default as a method of layaway
>> shopping with no fees and no limits, there'd be no domains for the
>> registrants that actually want to eat, at the expense of everyone but
>> the tasters. Who if not ICANN should fix the loophole? If the answer
>> to that question is Verisign that I've heard in the past, then why
>> isn't that clarified in view #2? Is it that registrars with view #2
>> don't want "anyone" to regulate this, or that they just don't want the
>> GNSO and ICANN to regulate it?
>>
>> Finally, as you all know, layaway tasting by use of the AGP is a hot
>> topic right now. Although I disagree with the way the 'pioneer' in
>> this service has handled it, I do feel that it has some merit, so 
>> long as...
>>
>> a) the customers actively choose to put the domain on layaway.
>> b) the registrar (and in turn the registrant) is charged a small fee
>> for the transaction.
>>
>> So, for my two cents, I think that a possible solution is to provide
>> AGP at no charge for a percentage of total registrations for any given
>> registrar (for testing, fraud and errors), and anything above that
>> should be charged a reduced fee. What registrars do with AGP after
>> that is up to each of them, but at least then it'd be a legitimate and
>> paid service rather than a free for all.
>>
>> I understand that it's very late to be making these comments, but I've
>> really been struggling with this ballot and I'll try to voice my
>> opinions sooner in future.
>>
>> ~Paul
>> :DomainIt
>>
>>
>>
>> At 01:47 PM 1/4/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
>>
>> >Happy new year Bob! (and everyone else).
>> >
>> >To be honest, I find the whole ballot very confusing. While I agree
>> >with some aspects of what is stated, I find other elements of the
>> >motion very troubling. I don't believe that I can vote in favor of 
>> the
>> >motion without somehow endorsing elements of the statement that I
>> >fundamentally disagree with.
>> >
>> >As such, I will be voting against this motion. Time permitting, I 
>> will
>> >send something along to the list outlining exactly what our position
>> >and preferences on this subject are.
>> >
>> >On 4-Jan-08, at 11:56 AM, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
>> >
>> >>Dear Registrars: The ballot on the motion has been sent to the
>> >>Voting Members List. If you are other than the voting member of a
>> >>dues paying registrar, you may want to be sure that your voting
>> >>member received the ballot.
>> >>
>> >>The ballot will remain open until midnight GMT, 11 January 2008. A
>> >>second and third ballot will be sent between now and the closing of
>> >>the ballot. Voting members may vote several times but any secondary
>> >>ballots overwrite the prior ballots. The final results will be open
>> >>for all to see.
>> >>
>> >>For your convenience, the Main Motion and the Unfriendly Amendment
>> >>are posted at the following URL:
>> >>
>> >> http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars
>> >>
>> >>I call your attention to the following "preamble" to the Main 
>> Motion:
>> >>
>> >>The Motion: Move that the Registrar Constituency approve the
>> >>following statement as Registrar Constituency Statement on Domain
>> >>Tasting: 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.
>> >>
>> >>end quote:
>> >>
>> >>Searching our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure, I do not find a
>> >>definition for "Supermajority" nor any reference to a
>> >>"Supermajority". It *is* clear that any amendment to the By-Laws
>> >>requires a 66% majority. However, the ICANN By-Laws make multiple
>> >>references to Supermajority.
>> >>
>> >>Article 16, Additional Definitions states "'Supermajority Vote'
>> >>means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members
>> >>present at a meeting of the applicable body".
>> >>
>> >>Those who drafted the Registrar Constituency By-Laws and Rules of
>> >>Procedure were opposed to our earlier use of "straw ballots". They
>> >>insisted that no one promulgate *any* position to our Constituency
>> >>that was not supported by a vote taken when a quorum of voting
>> >>members was present. I believe that, until our last two meetings,
>> >>we have not ever had a quorum of voting members present at a
>> >>meeting, neither "live" nor by teleconference. Thus, we have relied
>> >>upon the written ballot. Our Rules of Procedure give us clear
>> >>instructions on how we are to ballot on motions. This present
>> >>ballot complies with those instructions.
>> >>
>> >>So, when voting on the motion and the unfriendly amendment, keep in
>> >>mind that positions of the Registrar Constituency *do_not* require a
>> >>66% majority and that, until now, we have not taken *any* vote on
>> >>whether domain tasting is "good, bad or indifferent". Till now, it
>> >>has been all talk, no vote.
>> >>
>> >>The Main Motion does not actually define the position of the
>> >>Constituency. It *is* a clear and carefully drafted statement of
>> >>two opposing "Views" of "many registrars". If the majority of
>> >>ballots cast for the *Amendment* are favourable, there will be a
>> >>second ballot which will seek determine whether the Constituency
>> >>supports one or the other View described by the Main Motion.
>> >>
>> >>Respectfully submitted,
>> >>Bob Connelly
>> >>Secretary
>> >
>> >Ross Rader
>> >Director, Retail Services
>> >t. 416.538.5492
>> >c. 416.828.8783
>> >http://www.domaindirect.com
>> >
>> >"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
>> >- Erik Nupponen
>>
>
>Ross Rader
>Director, Retail Services
>t. 416.538.5492
>c. 416.828.8783
>http://www.domaindirect.com
>
>"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
>- Erik Nupponen