Dear Members  I am concerned with the following contents of Tim's motion, some of which are contradictory:

1.  From the preamble to Tim's motion, it can be interpreted that GNSO has already agreed to initiate a PGP.

2.  Tim's last line says "The RC ... is  generally opposed to a PDP on this issue."

Here is the GNSO Resolution on the subject:

Resolution #2:  Whereas, the GNSO Council acknowledges the Final Outcomes Report of the
ad hoc group on Domain Tasting,
http://gnso.icann.org/drafts/gnso-domain-tasting-adhoc-outcomes-report-final.pdf
the Council hereby initiates a Policy Development Process, and pursuant
to Sections 4 and 8 of Annex A of the Bylaws,

The GNSO minutes state that all resolutions other than #1 passed.

What am I missing?  It has been decreed that there *will* be a Policy Development Process.

3.  View 2, b. of the Main Motion says ICANN is not a regulatory body. 

4.  The two  paragraphs after "Sun-setting the AGP" would have GNSO recommending policies to ICANN which would have de-facto regulatory effects.

Paul Goldstone questioned who other than ICANN could "regulate" tasting:

quote:

I sent a message to him (Jon) and the constituency list, asking him to clarify who (if not ICANN) he expects to actually doing something about Domain Tasting should a decision be made.

end quote:

In my words, Paul asks *who* is in a position to "do something about" (regulate?) tasting?

If I understand Paul correctly, he thought I should clarify my Amendment with respect to who has the power to control domain testing.  Comments by John Berryhill and Marcus Faure suggest that the registries already have such "power".

I don't see that my amendment proposes that *anyone* should "do anything about it".  Here is my text:

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 and kiting.

end quote:

(Perhaps I should omit reference to kiting since it is not mentioned in the Main Motion.)

The text of the Main Motion does not propose "regulation".   Let's look at Tim's two "Views":

View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not
eliminated altogether ...

View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter
of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN ...

end quote:

My amendment is intended to only *quantify* how many RC Members fall into View 1 and View 2.  As such, I think the intents of Tim's motion and my proposed amendment are compatible.

Paul asks about the term "supermajority.  I do not find that term in our By-Laws or in our Rules of Procedure.  Generally speaking, a supermajority may be 67% or a greater percentage as defined where that term is used.  Perhaps it is found in the GNSO By-Laws.  I used the term in my proposed amendment because Tim used in the second paragraph of his Main Motion.


Respectfully submitted,
Bob Connelly