RE: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain Tasting

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Keep in mind that the motion proposes pretty much the same thing as the
already approved funnel requests of Neustar and Afilias for .biz and
.info. And that the current form of the registry agreements specifically
allows registries to limit the AGP deletes, so funnel requests from
other registries are likely to be approved just as quickly. What the
motion provides is a more consistent implementation across registries. 
 
Also, the first step in getting our message across to the Board is with
the GNSO vote on this motion. Whether we vote in favor or not we should
include an on-the-record statement regarding our views of both the
motion and the ICANN fee. See my proposal on the Members list.


Tim 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [registrars] Call for action - GNSO motion on Domain
Tasting
From: "Bhavin Turakhia" <bhavin.t@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 10, 2008 4:33 am
To: "'Bruce Tonkin'" <Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>, "'Registrar
Constituency'" <registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>




> The Board has not "approved' a 20 cent fee, the Board has 
> proposed this
> as part of the budget process - which is subject to comment, and won't
> be finalised until presumably June 08. So the registrars 
> constituency
> is free to propose alternative models, and the GNSO is free 
> to recommend
> policy related to this area.

Thanks for the clarification bruce. My bad. I did not mean to state that
various constituencies should not have the option to propose
alternatives.
And I am all for the attempt of folks coming up with alternatives. My
concern is that it is logical to expect that the solution proposed
should
have zero to minimal negative impact. The GNSO proposal seems to be a
knee-jerk reaction and does not take into account the feedback of those
directly impacted - registrants and registrars - probably not because
they
don't want to - but because there seems to be silence from our side this
second time on the list. I may again be wrong about this.

My reason for raising this on the registrars constituency mailing list
was
to try and understand the following 2 items -

(1) are we as a constituency doing everything we can to provide clear
feedback that the proposed penalty (of 6+ dollars) would impact
registrars /
business models and registrants.

(2) if the GNSO motion does go through - do we have any next steps to
try
and get this message across to the board, since the attendance from the
board in the RC meeting in india was limited, and I think it would help
to
hear this directly from the registrars