[registrars] Proposed ballot on Constituency statement to GNSO regarding Domain Tasting.

[Ross Rader]

This is the most complicated thing I have ever seen. With respect to  
all involved on crafting it, I won't vote on it and would request that  
a more understandable motion be drawn up.

I also don't understand how a request from council to appoint someone  
to put together a constituency submission on this subject has turned  
into a call for us to take a position.

Why must we make these things so complicated all the time?

---
Warm regards,

-Ross





Sent from my iPhone using my DomainDirect.com personalized mobile  
email. Ask me how it works!



On Nov 29, 2007, at 1:49 AM, "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC at awesome- 
goo.com> wrote:

>
> Dear Members: The following proposed ballot on a motion is being  
> published in accordance with Article I.8 of the Rules of Procedure:
>
> 8. 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.    end quote:
>
> The Main Motion:
>
> Moved that we accept the following as the RC position statement and
> submit it to the GNSO Council as such:
>
> 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-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:  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.
>
> Here is the ballot on the Main Motion:
>
> 1. Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement, above:
> /_/ Approve
> /_/  Disapprove
> /_/  Abstain
>
> Amendment to the Main Motion:
>
> Moved that a vote be taken to determine the position of the members  
> of the Registrars Constituency on Domain Tasting.
>
> Here is the ballot on the Amendment:
>
> 2. Approve a Constituency position statement that its members are  
> opposed to Domain Tasting in principle, promulgating a statement  
> similar to View 1 of the Main Motion, above:
> /_/  Yes
> /_/  No
> /_/  Abstain
>
> 3. Approve a Constituency position statement that many of its  
> members believe that Domain Tasting should not be a matter of  
> concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN, promulgating a statement  
> similar to View 2 of the Main Motion, above:
>
> /_/  Yes
> /_/  No
> /_/  Abstain
>
> End of ballot:
>
> Please send any comments you have to me via the regular RC mailing  
> list.
>
> Respectfully submitted,
> Bob Connelly
> Secretary
> Registrar Constituency
>
>