ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[registrars]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting



Sorry - see my later message. I inadvertently hit cmd-shift-d intuitively instead of cmd-v to paste the text from the page you referenced.

The text I quoted in the later message isn't really associated with either view and I'm wondering how to vote if I don't support the text in that passage.

Again, the passage I'm questioning is this:

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
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.

The Amendment
Inasmuch as there has been much written on domain tasting and kiting in the general RC mail list, and, Inasmuch as there has been no definitive work or ballot to find a consensus or supermajority among ICANN Accredited Registrars, Now, therefore, I move that a vote be taken to determine the position of the members of the Registrars Constituency on domain tasting.


On 31-Jan-08, at 10:12 AM, Nevett, Jonathon wrote:

http://www.icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars


-----Original Message-----
From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@xxxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Thursday, January 31, 2008 9:59 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon
Cc: Registrar Constituency
Subject: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting

Can someone clarify for me which "view" this text is associated with?


On 29-Jan-08, at 5:22 PM, 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



Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen





Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen







<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>