RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

["Rob Hall" <rob@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom,

 

I agree with Jon here.  The publishing of the ballot is to ensure that
the ballot actually represents what the original motion was.  It is not
a time to change the motion nor the contents or ideal of the vote.  It
is typically just a mechanism to ensure that the electoral officer who
is running the vote accurately captured the motion with the words on the
ballot.

 

I do agree with many of your statements, and I would encourage you to
submit them to the task force (or whatever they are calling themselves)
directly.  I believe we are in a public comment period, and I also
believe that many more of us should be participating and getting our
voices on the record.  While the constituency putting a statement on the
record is great, it should be supplemented with more views.

 

So please do submit your thoughts to the record, not just this list.  I
find that too often, we sometimes think that by debating things here
they make it into the record, because we all know that every board
member reads our list religiously <grin>.

 

Thanks Tom.

 

Rob 

 

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: January-26-08 10:28 AM
To: Registrar Constituency
Subject: RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

 

Tom:

 

Thanks for your input.  Yes, the 72 hour clock has started.

 

The RC approved a statement on tasting that included two potential views
http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars.  We also approved an
amendment that called for a poll of the RC as to members' positions on
tasting.  This ballot is the poll asking you all to which of the two
views in the final statement you subscribe.

 

If we still were formulating the underlying statement, your proposed
changes might be a good addition from my perspective.  If we add more
views at this point that do not track to the two specific views in the
statement, however, it would add additional complexity and confusion to
an already confusing and lengthy process.  I recommend against the
change at this point.  

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

________________________________

From: Thomas Barrett - EnCirca [mailto:tbarrett@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 2:49 PM
To: Nevett, Jonathon; 'Registrar Constituency'
Subject: RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

 

Jonathan,

 

I assume that this email commences the 72-hour review window prior to
any voting?

 

If so, here my comments:

 

I would like to propose that more of the document be voted on
separately, in order to get a clearer sense of where registrars stand.
The rest of the text following "view 2" should be voted on as well and
could be split as follows:

 

view 3:

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-f
inal.pdf
<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: 

view 4: 

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. 

view 5: 

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. 

view 6: 

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. 

===

 

best regards,

 

Tom

 

 

 

________________________________

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Nevett, Jonathon
Sent: Friday, January 25, 2008 11:00 AM
To: Registrar Constituency
Subject: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

Registrars:

 

After a number of members raised concerns about the current ballot
related to the GNSO PDP on Tasting, we checked to see if the ballot had
been circulated to the membership for review prior to the vote per our
Rules of Procedure (Rule 8 provides that the "Secretary will create and
publish the ballot. The ballot will remain open for inspection and
possible amendment or correction for 72 hours prior to the vote.").
Unfortunately, the ballot was never published for review by the
membership 72 hours prior to the vote.  Therefore, we need to revote.
Taking the criticism of the ballot into account, however, the following
is the new ballot for review by members.  The old ballot results will
neither be posted nor used by anyone.  The underlying statement will be
sent to the GNSO for inclusion in the final report and the results of
this upcoming vote will be sent over as soon as they are ready.  We
apologize for having to do this, but we felt it was the best course.  

 

Here is the new proposed ballot:

 

The Main Motion is found in the following URL.  Please review the two
"Views" and base your vote upon the contents of these Views.  They are
carefully written.  In both cases, they oppose Sunsetting the AGP.   

 

        http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars

 

Mark your ballot based upon your agreement with View 1 or View 2 of the
Main Motion  --- or both Views or neither.

 

Be sure to use the same Email address as the address to which the ballot
was sent.

 

Do not edit the ballot.  Do not make any entries other than an "x" for
your preference.  Do not check more than one option:

 

/_ / Agree with view 1

/_ / Agree with view 2

/_ / Agree with both views

/_ / Don't agree with either view