[registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent to Voting Members.

[Ross Rader]

I originally made these and other comments on the 10th, 14th and 29th  
of November.

On 11-Jan-08, at 5:54 PM, Tim Ruiz wrote:

> Paul and Ross, appreciate your comments and concerns. The motion was  
> posted for discussion, comment, and amendment for 14 days. The only  
> individual offering an amendment was Bob Connelly, and it was  
> included as an alternate given it's structure and couldn't be deemed  
> friendly (incorporated in the motion) for that reason. Having these  
> comments during that period would certainly have been helpful.
>
>
> Tim
>
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [registrars] The Ballot on Domain Tasting has been sent  
> to
> Voting Members.
> From: Paul Goldstone <paulg at domainit.com>
> Date: Fri, January 11, 2008 1:09 pm
> To: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
> Cc: "Robert F. Connelly" <BobC at awesome-goo.com>, Registrars
> Constituency <registrars at gnso.icann.org>
>
>
> Ross,
>
> I have been anxious to see your follow up as I too have been really
> troubled over this ballot. While I want to be a part of an RC
> statement on this matter, at this point I am about out of time and am
> only comfortable with approving the ammendment - to take a vote on the
> RC members' position on domain tasting. I'd appreciate some feedback
> (from anyone) on some of my thoughts.
>
> My first thought is that the ballot should start with an agreed
> description on what we feel domain tasting to be (possibly by way of a
> vote). Otherwise it's left open to opinion on what uses of the AGP we
> are discussing and consider to be tasting.
>
> Another concern is that there are a number of places throughout the
> ballot that claim an opinion without having taken a vote. I don't see
> the value of sending a statement that has not been substantiated by
> taking a vote, and that is already covered a lot better by some of the
> other groups so far anyway.
>
> For example, the ballot claims that the RC is in general agreement for
> the "Preferred" and "Acceptable but not Preferred" recommendations. I
> don't completely agree with the "Acceptable but not Preferred"
> recommendation as stated, and don't recall a vote being held to
> determine if the RC was indeed in general agreement. Also, could
> someone please clarify what PDP stands for in the following statement?
> "Therefore the RC, regardless of their view, is generally opposed to
> a PDP on this issue"
>
> Another example is the two views at the beginning of the motion that
> start with "Many registrars believe that...". Again, without taking a
> vote, I think it would be more accurate to say "Some registrars
> believe that..." I'm not trying to split hairs here but how many
> registrars constitute "many"? IOW, what percentage of total
> registrars have stated that they agree with either view? Perhaps this
> is just my opinion but I feel that when people read that, it could
> come across that it's an even (or close to even) split between
> registrars that agree with domain tasting those that do not. Is that  
> the case?
>
> Personally I think we should jump ahead to the amendment and take a
> vote. If the majority disagrees with domain tasting then we submit it
> along with a statement, and if the majority agrees with domain tasting
> then we pretend we didn't vote. Of course I'm joking. I do think we
> should have taken a vote first though.
>
> I also think it's important to keep reminding people by including a
> comment that the overwhelming majority of domain tasting is done by a
> select few companies.
>
> Regarding view #2, I am fine that there are opposing opinions, but
> from a personal level I don't understand why "many registrars" believe
> that domain tasting is due to market demand. So far as I understand
> it, a small number of companies use domain tasting to register
> millions of domains, add PPC pages, and keep the ones that make money.
> I'd be interested to hear from the many registrars with view #2 as to
> how that relates to market demand.
>
> I also don't understand the second statement of view #2 that states
> that ICANN should not be regulating market activity. "Market
> activity" doesn't seem an appropriate description if it's just a few
> companies. IMO "most" domain tasting nowadays is the use of a
> loophole, and bottom line is that if everyone tasted domains for PPC
> monetization, and/or tasted domains by default as a method of layaway
> shopping with no fees and no limits, there'd be no domains for the
> registrants that actually want to eat, at the expense of everyone but
> the tasters. Who if not ICANN should fix the loophole? If the answer
> to that question is Verisign that I've heard in the past, then why
> isn't that clarified in view #2? Is it that registrars with view #2
> don't want "anyone" to regulate this, or that they just don't want the
> GNSO and ICANN to regulate it?
>
> Finally, as you all know, layaway tasting by use of the AGP is a hot
> topic right now. Although I disagree with the way the 'pioneer' in
> this service has handled it, I do feel that it has some merit, so  
> long as...
>
> a) the customers actively choose to put the domain on layaway.
> b) the registrar (and in turn the registrant) is charged a small fee
> for the transaction.
>
> So, for my two cents, I think that a possible solution is to provide
> AGP at no charge for a percentage of total registrations for any given
> registrar (for testing, fraud and errors), and anything above that
> should be charged a reduced fee. What registrars do with AGP after
> that is up to each of them, but at least then it'd be a legitimate and
> paid service rather than a free for all.
>
> I understand that it's very late to be making these comments, but I've
> really been struggling with this ballot and I'll try to voice my
> opinions sooner in future.
>
> ~Paul
> :DomainIt
>
>
>
> At 01:47 PM 1/4/2008, Ross Rader wrote:
>
> >Happy new year Bob! (and everyone else).
> >
> >To be honest, I find the whole ballot very confusing. While I agree
> >with some aspects of what is stated, I find other elements of the
> >motion very troubling. I don't believe that I can vote in favor of  
> the
> >motion without somehow endorsing elements of the statement that I
> >fundamentally disagree with.
> >
> >As such, I will be voting against this motion. Time permitting, I  
> will
> >send something along to the list outlining exactly what our position
> >and preferences on this subject are.
> >
> >On 4-Jan-08, at 11:56 AM, Robert F. Connelly wrote:
> >
> >>Dear Registrars: The ballot on the motion has been sent to the
> >>Voting Members List. If you are other than the voting member of a
> >>dues paying registrar, you may want to be sure that your voting
> >>member received the ballot.
> >>
> >>The ballot will remain open until midnight GMT, 11 January 2008. A
> >>second and third ballot will be sent between now and the closing of
> >>the ballot. Voting members may vote several times but any secondary
> >>ballots overwrite the prior ballots. The final results will be open
> >>for all to see.
> >>
> >>For your convenience, the Main Motion and the Unfriendly Amendment
> >>are posted at the following URL:
> >>
> >> http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars
> >>
> >>I call your attention to the following "preamble" to the Main  
> Motion:
> >>
> >>The Motion: Move that the Registrar Constituency approve the
> >>following statement as Registrar Constituency Statement on Domain
> >>Tasting: 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.
> >>
> >>end quote:
> >>
> >>Searching our By-Laws and Rules of Procedure, I do not find a
> >>definition for "Supermajority" nor any reference to a
> >>"Supermajority". It *is* clear that any amendment to the By-Laws
> >>requires a 66% majority. However, the ICANN By-Laws make multiple
> >>references to Supermajority.
> >>
> >>Article 16, Additional Definitions states "'Supermajority Vote'
> >>means a vote of more than sixty-six (66) percent of the members
> >>present at a meeting of the applicable body".
> >>
> >>Those who drafted the Registrar Constituency By-Laws and Rules of
> >>Procedure were opposed to our earlier use of "straw ballots". They
> >>insisted that no one promulgate *any* position to our Constituency
> >>that was not supported by a vote taken when a quorum of voting
> >>members was present. I believe that, until our last two meetings,
> >>we have not ever had a quorum of voting members present at a
> >>meeting, neither "live" nor by teleconference. Thus, we have relied
> >>upon the written ballot. Our Rules of Procedure give us clear
> >>instructions on how we are to ballot on motions. This present
> >>ballot complies with those instructions.
> >>
> >>So, when voting on the motion and the unfriendly amendment, keep in
> >>mind that positions of the Registrar Constituency *do_not* require a
> >>66% majority and that, until now, we have not taken *any* vote on
> >>whether domain tasting is "good, bad or indifferent". Till now, it
> >>has been all talk, no vote.
> >>
> >>The Main Motion does not actually define the position of the
> >>Constituency. It *is* a clear and carefully drafted statement of
> >>two opposing "Views" of "many registrars". If the majority of
> >>ballots cast for the *Amendment* are favourable, there will be a
> >>second ballot which will seek determine whether the Constituency
> >>supports one or the other View described by the Main Motion.
> >>
> >>Respectfully submitted,
> >>Bob Connelly
> >>Secretary
> >
> >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