Thanks Jay. Actually, by posting the motion I guess I was volunteering. What we need is a position statement more or less. We've discussed over and over among ourselves, had two ICANN workshops, and the GNSO ad hoc WG on it. I don't think any more discussion or debate is going to change any of our views. So that's why I proposed the statement. And I'm pretty open to amendments. I just want it to represent our views accurately. It has two seconds, just needs one more and we can be in the formal 14 day discussion window. Can I take your comment below as a second? Tim -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement From: "Jay Westerdal" <jwesterdal@nameintel.com> Date: Sun, November 11, 2007 7:08 pm To: "Ross Rader" <ross@tucows.com> Cc: "Eric Brunner-Williams" <brunner@nic-naa.net>, "Tim Ruiz" <tim@godaddy.com>, "Registrars Constituency" <registrars@gnso.icann.org> I think Tim Ruiz did a great job summarizing it. Tim you available to do it? On 11/10/07, Ross Rader <ross@tucows.com > wrote: The motions and discussion make this out to be more complicated than the work requires. At this point, the Council has requested that we appoint someone to compile a report of the constituency views. This person need not represent our interests in any forum as the Council has chosen to use an open working group format in which there are no specific constituency representatives - anyone interested can participate. The important thing now is to create this report that captures the views of the constituency. Whomever we appoint should be free to use whatever means appropriate to solicit and record these views. On 9-Nov-07, at 5:32 PM, Eric Brunner-Williams wrote:
Tim,
The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. This puts a (process) conclusion ahead of any (policy) ballot. I suggest not making (process) comments, after all, in theory we could reach a two-thirds position among the voting RC members.
I think we should put the stability and security issue up front. Phish live for days, and the volume of tasting registrations makes it wicked difficult to create mechanisms which rely upon this critical temporal property -- registrations in the first tens of hours of life -- to detect and change A records used in Phish. Part of the energy for WHOIS comes from the claim that without WHOIS Phish can't be caught. We don't want to make that belief more credible than it already is.
I'll talk to the anti-Phish TF folks and get back to the RC, unless someone already has some text ready to go.
Eric
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 -- Jay Westerdal CEO, Name Intelligence www.domaintools.com http://blog.domaintools.com (Corporate Blog) 206.866.5090 (Cell)