Registrars Constituency
January 26, 2008
The following statement of views was put to a vote and the Registrar Constituency (RC) approved it by majority vote. Votes were cast by 31 of the RC’s 65 members, 20 voted in favor, 4 voted against, and 7 abstained.
Registrar Constituency Statement of Views on Domain Name Tasting:
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 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.