<html>
<body>
All,<br><br>
Jon acknowledged to me that the amendment ballot was posted prior to
<br>
the end of the 72 hour review. I've given this a lot of thought,
and <br>
assuming we now need to re-vote again, and that the ballot is up for
<br>
changes as it was for the previous re-vote, I would like to make some
<br>
comments and get more input as to what the final amendment ballot should
be.<br><br>
As a reminder, here is the amendment that got passed with 16 for and 6
against:<br><br>
=========================================================================<br>
The Amendment <br><br>
Inasmuch as there has been much written on domain tasting and kiting
<br>
in the general RC mail list, and, <br><br>
Inasmuch as there has been no definitive work or ballot to find a <br>
consensus or supermajority among ICANN Accredited Registrars, <br><br>
Now, therefore, I move that a vote be taken to determine the position
<br>
of the members of the Registrars Constituency on domain tasting. <br>
=========================================================================<br>
<br>
What did that statement mean to the 16 "for" votes?<br><br>
To me, and the point I made in my previous email during the review <br>
period was that the amendment implies we are now taking a vote on the
<br>
RC members' opinions on domain tasting, and the two views in the <br>
original ballot don't suffice because they only claimed that:<br><br>
a) There are some registrars who disagree with tasting.<br>
b) There are some registrars who don't necessarily agree or disagree
<br>
with tasting but just don't think that it's something that ICANN or <br>
GNSO should be concerned with.<br><br>
I don't feel that voting on those two views would effectively <br>
determine our position, and for that reason I believe that the ballot
<br>
submitted by Bob Connelly more accurately represented the amendment as
follows:<br><br>
[] Vote in favour of Domain Tasting<br>
[] Vote against Domain Tasting<br>
[] Abstain<br><br>
*However*, there are some who feel that the above ballot would be too
<br>
cut and dry, and I agree with that viewpoint. Especially since we
<br>
have not defined what domain tasting actually is that we are voting <br>
for or against.<br><br>
Is it domain tasting if you do it once a month, or millions of times a
<br>
month? At what point in between does it turn it into "domain
tasting" <br>
that we're voting for or against? Is it domain tasting if you
provide <br>
it as a reasonable business service to clients? How about if that
<br>
turns into millions of times per month? I think the majority would
<br>
agree that this all started with the very few who dominate the bar <br>
chart in the GNSO report and tie up domain names that no users are <br>
able to register.<br><br>
So, do we want a cut and dry response as to whether the majority <br>
agrees or disagrees with "domain tasting" period and assume
that <br>
everyone knows what we all consider to be domain tasting, or do we <br>
want to submit a response that clarifies our various positions? For
<br>
example, it's reasonable to assume that some registrars and RC members
<br>
may not want to vote for or against domain tasting 'period', although
<br>
they might be fine with voting for or against certain uses of the AGP
<br>
in regards to "domain tasting".<br><br>
Others may disagree, but one such item that keeps coming up, makes <br>
sense to me, and has already worked, is by charging a fee for any AGP
<br>
transactions above a certain number/ratio. Why should that not be
one <br>
of the choices to vote on with regards to determining the position of
<br>
RC members on domain tasting, if in fact "any" number of
members hold <br>
that position?<br><br>
I'm sure it will bother some people that this is delaying things, <br>
but we passed a vote to determine the position of RC members on domain
<br>
tasting and that's all I'm trying to get going here. At this point
I <br>
think it would be beneficial for people to comment on the various <br>
positions they want included in the amendment ballot. I already
<br>
posted my position directly above and I'd like to see that choice on
<br>
the amendment ballot.<br><br>
Best Regards,<br><br>
~Paul<br><br>
<br>
At 05:32 PM 1/27/2008, Paul Goldstone wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Rob,<br><br>
My initial understanding of the original ballot was that there are <br>
many registrars who disagree with domain tasting, and there are many
<br>
registrars who don't feel it should be something for GNSO or ICANN to
address.<br><br>
Point being, it didn't make any statement as to whether (any) <br>
registrars agree with domain tasting, which I thought was what this <br>
amendment was going to determine. ie.:<br><br>
"Now, therefore, I move that a vote be taken to determine the
position <br>
of the members of the Registrars Constituency on domain
tasting"<br>
<br>
The first circulated amendment ballot was as follows:<br><br>
[] Vote in favour of Domain Tasting<br>
[] Vote against Domain Tasting<br>
[] Abstain<br><br>
However, the new proposed amendment ballot asks if we agree with view
<br>
#1 or view #2 (or both) which are as follows:<br><br>
View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not
<br>
eliminated altogether for one or more of the following
reasons:...<br><br>
View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter of
<br>
concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN for one or more of the <br>
following reasons:...<br><br>
So, my opinion is that voting on those two views may determine a <br>
position of sorts, but not whether members agree or disagree with <br>
domain tasting as implied in the amendment.<br><br>
Also, I'm sorry to point out more confusion, but the main ballot <br>
refers to the views of registrars, whereas the amendment is asking for
<br>
the position of RC members.<br><br>
~Paul<br><br>
<br><br>
At 01:55 PM 1/26/2008, Rob Hall wrote:<br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite="">Tom,<br>
<br>
I agree with Jon here. The publishing of the ballot is to ensure
that the ballot actually represents what the original motion was.
It is not a time to change the motion nor the contents or ideal of the
vote. It is typically just a mechanism to ensure that the electoral
officer who is running the vote accurately captured the motion with the
words on the ballot.<br>
<br>
I do agree with many of your statements, and I would encourage you to
submit them to the task force (or whatever they are calling themselves)
directly. I believe we are in a public comment period, and I also
believe that many more of us should be participating and getting our
voices on the record. While the constituency putting a statement on
the record is great, it should be supplemented with more views.<br>
<br>
So please do submit your thoughts to the record, not just this
list. I find that too often, we sometimes think that by debating
things here they make it into the record, because we all know that every
board member reads our list religiously <grin>.<br>
<br>
Thanks Tom.<br>
<br>
Rob <br>
<br>
<b>From:</b> owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [
<a href="mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nevett,
Jonathon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> January-26-08 10:28 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Registrar Constituency<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot<br>
<br>
Tom:<br>
<br>
Thanks for your input. Yes, the 72 hour clock has started.<br>
<br>
The RC approved a statement on tasting that included two potential views
<a href="http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars">
http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars</a>. We also
approved an amendment that called for a poll of the RC as to members’
positions on tasting. This ballot is the poll asking you all to
which of the two views in the final statement you subscribe.<br>
<br>
If we still were formulating the underlying statement, your proposed
changes might be a good addition from my perspective. If we add
more views at this point that do not track to the two specific views in
the statement, however, it would add additional complexity and confusion
to an already confusing and lengthy process. I recommend against
the change at this point. <br>
<br>
Thanks.<br>
<br>
Jon<br>
<hr>
<b>From:</b> Thomas Barrett - EnCirca [
<a href="mailto:tbarrett@encirca.biz" eudora="autourl">
mailto:tbarrett@encirca.biz</a>] <br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 25, 2008 2:49 PM<br>
<b>To:</b> Nevett, Jonathon; 'Registrar Constituency'<br>
<b>Subject:</b> RE: [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot<br>
<br>
Jonathan,<br>
<br>
I assume that this email commences the 72-hour review window prior to any
voting?<br>
<br>
If so, here my comments:<br>
<br>
I would like to propose that more of the document be voted on separately,
in order to get a clearer sense of where registrars stand. The rest
of the text following "view 2" should be voted on as well and
could be split as follows:<br>
<br>
view 3:<br><br>
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: <br><br>
<a href="http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf">
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf</a>
<br><br>
Sun-setting the AGP would unnecessarily put additional burdens and costs
on Registrars and Registrants using the AGP for these non-Tasting
reasons. <br><br>
===<br><br>
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: <br><br>
view 4: <br><br>
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. <br><br>
view 5: <br><br>
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. <br><br>
view 6: <br><br>
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. <br>
===<br>
<br>
best regards,<br><br>
<br><br>
Tom<br><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<hr>
<b>From:</b> owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [
<a href="mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org" eudora="autourl">
mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Nevett,
Jonathon<br>
<b>Sent:</b> Friday, January 25, 2008 11:00 AM<br>
<b>To:</b> Registrar Constituency<br>
<b>Subject:</b> [registrars] Update on Tasting Ballot<br>
Registrars:<br>
<br>
After a number of members raised concerns about the current ballot
related to the GNSO PDP on Tasting, we checked to see if the ballot had
been circulated to the membership for review prior to the vote per our
Rules of Procedure (Rule 8 provides that 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.”).
Unfortunately, the ballot was never published for review by the
membership 72 hours prior to the vote. Therefore, we need to
revote. Taking the criticism of the ballot into account, however,
the following is the new ballot for review by members. The old
ballot results will neither be posted nor used by anyone. The
underlying statement will be sent to the GNSO for inclusion in the final
report and the results of this upcoming vote will be sent over as soon as
they are ready. We apologize for having to do this, but we felt it
was the best course. <br>
<br>
Here is the new proposed ballot:<br>
<br>
The Main Motion is found in the following URL. Please review the
two "Views" and base your vote upon the contents of these
Views. They are carefully written. In both cases, they oppose
Sunsetting the AGP. <br>
<br>
<a href="http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars">
http://icannregistrars.org/Talk:ICANN_Registrars</a><br>
<br>
Mark your ballot based upon your agreement with View 1 or View 2 of the
Main Motion --- or both Views or neither.<br>
<br>
Be sure to use the same Email address as the address to which the ballot
was sent.<br>
<br>
Do not edit the ballot. Do not make any entries other than an
"x" for your preference. Do not check more than one
option:<br>
<br>
/_ / Agree with view 1<br>
/_ / Agree with view 2<br>
/_ / Agree with both views<br>
/_ / Don't agree with either view<br>
<br>
</blockquote></blockquote></body>
</html>