RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot

[Paul Goldstone <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Rob,

My initial understanding of the original ballot was that there are 
many registrars who disagree with domain tasting, and there are many 
registrars who don't feel it should be something for GNSO or ICANN to address.

Point being, it didn't make any statement as to whether (any) 
registrars agree with domain tasting, which I thought was what this 
amendment was going to determine.  ie.:

"Now, therefore, I move that a vote be taken to determine the position 
of the members of the Registrars Constituency on domain tasting"

The first circulated amendment ballot was as follows:

[] Vote in favour of Domain Tasting
[] Vote against Domain Tasting
[] Abstain

However, the new proposed amendment ballot asks if we agree with view 
#1 or view #2 (or both) which are as follows:

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

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:...

So, my opinion is that voting on those two views may determine a 
position of sorts, but not whether members agree or disagree with 
domain tasting as implied in the amendment.

Also, I'm sorry to point out more confusion, but the main ballot 
refers to the views of registrars, whereas the amendment is asking for 
the position of RC members.

~Paul



At 01:55 PM 1/26/2008, Rob Hall wrote:
>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>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-final.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>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
> 
>