RE: [registrars] Re: Ballot to determine whether ICANN Registrars favor or oppose Domain Tasting.

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Russ,

Thank you for your email to the list.  I concur with your position that
the current ballot is rather confusing, as has been this entire process.
We are now being asked to vote for what seems like a simple statement,
but somehow links in some way to Tim's original two options in his
statement, which frankly, I support and I think articulate the positions
well.

I bet there is a ton of confusion about if you vote for or against, are
you voting for option 1 or option 2.

I have been mulling over if we would not be better to simply have a vote
on which of tim's statements we prefer, as they take into account all of
the factors, not just a simple "do you like tasting" or not.

I too believe the elimination of the AGP would be a bad thing.  I am
saddened to hear Bob confuse the AGP itself with tasting.  I am unclear
on what the statement "AGP is just a euphemism for that Abuse" actually
means.

The AGP (Add Grace Period) has been part of the policies we have all
operated under for some time.  It is a clearly defined period, not a
"euphemism for abuse".  

I am often surprised at the innovative things people come up with to
adapt and be competitive.  The different business models that Registrars
employ are exactly what differentiates us and ensures a competitive
market.  

While we as a company may not choose to implement and follow others, I
think it is dangerous for us as a constituency and group of competitors
to be trying to limit a business model one of our competitors may
choose.

For example, we may not implement what NSI did to protect their
customers in the same manner they did.  But frankly, I applaud their
innovation and use of the existing framework to try and serve their
customers.  I feel it is wrong for me, as their direct competitor, to
try and gang up on that practice and kill it just because we don't want
to implement it or like it, or are upset we didn't think of it first.

I am also amazed at the rhetoric that is being spewed by some.  Works
like "kiting", a criminal offence in most places, are being used against
your competitors.  Statements are also being taken out of context.  For
example, I believe that Verisign does not have an official position on
the removal of the AGP period, nor its current uses by different
Registrars.  If they did, I am sure it would be loud and clearly stated.

I agree with Ross.  We need to be civil and fair about how we deal with
competitive issues.  We need to tone down the spin and politics, and
start concentrating on what outcome we want.  To allow emotions to guide
us is not sound business judgment. 

We also need to be clear on what our positions are, and sure of what we
are voting on.  I think the current situation is not clear, and frankly,
I know I was confused when I went to vote.  It was your email, Russ,
that clarified a bit what I was voting on, and I wonder how many others
were equally confused.

The issue of the AGP is one that involves more than just "Domain
Tasting" and the practice of reserving a name temporarily for a client.
There are many uses of the AGP, and many that would love to see it taken
away for their own self interests.

We deserve a full debate on the issue, and a clear understanding of what
the constituency wants on all the details, not this type of confusion on
poorly worded ballots with unclear links to other statements.

Rob.



-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Russ Goodwin
Sent: Friday, January 18, 2008 1:52 PM
To: Robert F. Connelly; Registrars Constituency
Subject: [registrars] Re: Ballot to determine whether ICANN Registrars
favor or oppose Domain Tasting.

Bob-

When you say "follow up" do you mean that I should simply vote on this 
new ballot, or elaborate to the list on my already-placed vote?  Since I

already voted, I'll assume you meant the latter, thus:

My company chose to vote for the poorly worded option "vote in favour of

domain tasting" (which refers to View 2) because we do not support 
ICANN's attempt to regulate the market.  In general we believe ICANN has

and continues to overstep their bounds as a technical coordinator.

We make no judgments regarding anyone's use of the AGP.  If there is a 
real technical issue (i.e. ACTUAL destabilization of the .com/.net 
zones) then the .com/.net registry should make it known and take action 
like the .org registry.

We find most of the arguments in View 1 for taking action against 
"tasting" to be spurious at best.  For instance, ICANN is not tasked 
with protecting third parties who process zone files.  Another company 
I'm involved with processes com, net, and other zone files daily and we 
simply adapted our systems to handle the larger files.

We believe elimination of the AGP should not be an option and would 
cause more harm than good.

We support Network Solutions' (and other registrars') effort to make 
good use of the AGP to better serve their customers.

I hope this clarifies our position.

Regards,

-Russ



Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> Dear Russ:  I'd like to urge you to follow up on your vote supporting
the Amendment to the Motion on Domain Tasting (AGP).
> 
> I am writing as an individual registrar, not as the Secretary.
> 
> I prefer the term used by Chuck Gomes when he first told us of the
practice.  I believe it was "Abuse of Add-Delete Grace Period".  AGP is
just a euphemism for that Abuse.  Domain kiting is also covered by
Abuse.  And, in my opinion, so is the recent  NSI practice of
"reserving" domains after they are checked in the NSI Whois.
> 
> Your vote against Domain Tasting will help send the right kind of
message to GNSO --- contrary to what some voices are shouting,
Registrars *do_not* universally approve of Domain Tasting.
> 
> I urge you to return your ballot marked as shown in the following
sample:
> 
> [Domain Tasting]
> 	[] Vote in favour of Domain Tasting
> 	[x] Vote against Domain Tasting
> 	[] Abstain
> 
> Cordially, BobC
> 
>