RE: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting

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

Thanks Paul.  

Assessing the Transaction Fee on names deleted during the AGP is a different review process than the GNSO policy review on tasting.  ICANN will consider the fee issues as part of its budget process.  We will have ICANN Senior Staff at our meeting in Delhi to take comments and there will be a public comment period.  Also, please keep in mind that ICANN must seek registrar approval of these fees in order to invoice us directly.

With that said, let's start discussing what folks think should be an appropriate threshold or allowance before the fee kicks in.  I think that would be a very productive and timely discussion.

Thanks.

Jon 

-----Original Message-----
From: "Paul Goldstone" <paulg@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: 1/29/08 11:28 PM
Subject: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting

Jon,

I understood time was an issue so I voted on the amendment, but after 
it was changed and I disagreed with the new ballot, I made sure to 
express my opinions. I think everyone should feel free to do the same.

I also just got the ICANN news alert you sent.  If I understand it 
correctly, if the ICANN proposal passes, we may end up paying for 
every AGP transaction irregardless of the reason.  If not now, when is 
an appropriate time to submit our suggestions for allowances or refunds 
based on a ratio of AGP vs total registrations, or any other suggestions?

Best Regards,

~Paul


At 05:22 PM 1/29/2008, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

>Just to bring everyone up to speed.  The Registrar Constituency has
>approved a statement on tasting, which has been sent to the GNSO
>Council.  The statement provides that registrars are opposed to the
>elimination of the AGP.  It also provides two "views" that registrars
>generally have on tasting.  At the same time, the RC also approved an
>amendment that seeks to determine more specific member views on tasting.
>
>
>As you know, we have been back and forth on various ballots.  As
>highlighted by posts by Tom Barrett and Paul Goldstone, the problem is
>that there appear to be more than just the two views on tasting that we
>approved in the statement.  It's too bad that this dialogue hadn't
>occurred during the discussion period on the statement.  Considering
>that our statement was due on December 5, the public comment period
>closed yesterday, and the GNSO Final Report is due next week, however,
>we just don't have time (nor the inclination) to revisit the whole
>statement.   
>
>Therefore, by a unanimous vote of the Executive Committee, we are moving
>forward with the following ballot.  The ballot, which will open
>tomorrow, is the same ballot that I posted on Friday, but we have added
>a line for members to abstain.  We hope that the abstention line
>responds to comments from folks that they don't like the ballot at all,
>they think that this is a waste of time, etc. 
>
>
>/_ / Agree with view 1
>
>/_ / Agree with view 2
>
>/_ / Agree with both views
>
>/_ / Don't agree with either view
>
>/_ / Abstain
>
>
>Sorry that this has been such a difficult process.  
>
>Thanks.
>
>Jon