[registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting

[Tim Ruiz]

Hi Ross,
 
The way I'm seeing it is that it is only the two views that this vote
applies to. So whatever the outcome, the non-view associated text would
not be associated with the results. Jon, Bob?
 

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [registrars] Updated Ballot on Tasting
From: Ross Rader <ross at tucows.com>
Date: Thu, January 31, 2008 10:28 am
To: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett at networksolutions.com>
Cc: "Registrar Constituency" <registrars at gnso.icann.org>


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 at tucows.com]
> 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