Hi Alan What other more viable options are there that we should advocate? JAM
-----Original Message----- From: alac-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:alac- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Alan Greenberg Sent: Sunday, December 02, 2007 01:08 To: 'At-Large Worldwide' Subject: Re: [At-Large] ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting
Danny, point taken. Hopefully we will learn how to effectively develop such statements in the future with significant contributions from At-Large in general and a formal vote by the ALAC.
Regarding the three comments about the AGP. From the Domain tasting working group Outcomes Report and indeed from the RC statement you quote, it is clear that wholesale elimination of the AGP will not fly. And indeed it is not necessary to eliminate tasting. I would see little point in strongly advocating a position that we know will not be adopted when there are other more viable options available.
Do you propose that given the deadline, the ALAC decline to submit a statement at all in this case (to my knowledge, the first time we have been invited to do so)?
Alan
At 01/12/2007 11:03 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
Alan,
A "Statement" is supposed to be the end-result of a group-wide debate on policy options.
Sorry, but I haven't seen any debate. I also haven't seen any letter going out to any of the RALOs either outlining the policy choices or asking for the RALO views. Neither have I seen any letter going out to the 93 accredited ALSs asking for their views on the policy options.
So, yeah, I'm not comfortable with the approach being taken and my tone clearly reflects that. That said, I have noted some earlier comments that pointed to a policy preference that at the very least could have been incorporated into the Statement:
(1) "We propose to abandon the five day Add Grace period". http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org/2007q1/000332.html
(2) "The only consistent solution seems to get rid of AGP". http://icannalac.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-19.html
(3) "The add grace period is just a mistake. The problem it purports to solve is not and never was an important one." http://forum.icann.org/lists/alac/msg02173.html
Is the above representative of an At-Large consensus on the topic? Who knows? The members haven't been polled, have they?
What's important in my view is actually reaching out to obtain the At-Large sentiment, enumerating those views, and determining the relative strength of the positions being held. As I see it, that hasn't been done yet.
So how do other groups approach the matter? Other constituencies actually discuss, and debate the topic with all of their members -- they even call for a vote.
Consider, for example, the registrar community. They have been actively debating the issue for the last month and have still not yet arrived at a thoroughgoing policy determination (but they are now in the end-process of settling on a position or set of positions).
Below you will find the text of a motion on domain tasting currently being discussed within the registrar constituency.
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.
______________________________________________________________________
Be a better pen pal. Text or chat with friends inside Yahoo! Mail. See how. http://overview.mail.yahoo.com/
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge- lists.icann.org
At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 21:26
No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.12/1162 - Release Date: 11/30/2007 21:26