RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

["Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom:

Tom:  OK.  Below is the statement we approved articulating two registrar
views on tasting.  Because Bob's amendment was approved, we now are
having a vote to see which of the two views (or both or neither) each
member subscribes to.  I understand that the first sentence of our
statement may not make much sense depending on how this upcoming vote
goes, but it is what we approved.  Thanks.  Jon

Here is our approved statement:

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. 

View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not
eliminated altogether for one or more of the following reasons: 

a. Tasting is causing general confusion among registrants and potential
registrants trying to register domain names. 

b. Tasting is eroding consumer confidence in the security and
trustworthiness of domain name registration services and our industry in
general. 

c. Tasting is causing an increase in support costs for Registrars. 

d. Tasting violates well-established codes of conduct and good practice
intended to ensure security and stability by: 

i. disturbing the stability of a set of existing services that had been
functioning satisfactorily, namely the competitive domain name
registration services developed by Registrars; 

ii. disturbing other existing systems and value added services, for
example those relying on Zone files, and various third party WHOIS
services; 

iii. increasing costs that must be absorbed by others not participating
in or benefiting from Tasting. 

e. Despite the long held tenet of "First do no harm," there has been no
research, testing for potential disruption of existing services, public
review, or comment prior to this high volume activity abruptly occurring
in the DNS. 

In summary, high volume Tasting activity has undermined expectations
about reliable behavior and in so doing has reduced trust in the
security and stability of the system and has increased costs for
registrars, registrants, and others not participating in the activity. 

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--

View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter of
concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN for one or more of the following
reasons: 

a. Tasting takes place due to market demand, and the market should be
allowed to evolve as demand dictates. 

b. ICANN is not a regulatory body, and according to its own bylaws,
coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to
technical functions of the DNS. ICANN should not be regulating market
activity. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

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

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: 

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. 

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. 

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.