At 02:36 PM 11/9/2007 Friday -0700, Tim Ruiz wrote:
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.
Dear Tim: Regarding the second paragraph of your motion, quoted
above, there has been no vote, so how could there be a
"supermajority", a simple majority or a rejection by a
majority? I contest your motion for the simple reason that there
has been no attempt to test "a particular position on Domain Name
Tasting".
On the other hand, please consider the following quotation on this list
by Laura Mather of MarkMonitor.
http://www.antiphishing.org/reports/DNSPWG_ReportDomainTastingandPhishing.pdf
Please refer to the last paragraph of page one, which reads as
follows:
It is generally perceived that the great majority of domain name tasting
is performed by a
small number of registrars who exist specifically to amass and maintain
tasting portfolios.
Typically, these registrars do not offer
registration services to the public.
end quote:
If the above paragraph is correct, and other members have posted comments
that the report is fair and objective, then one would expect that a
supermajority of our members *could* find a position they can
support.
Let me quote one member's posting on the "Anti-Phishing Working
Group" report:
Laura,
All kidding aside, I think this was a solid objective
report.
Good job.
Best regards,
Tom Barrett
EnCirca, Inc
end quote:
I supported the original draft of Tim's motion, which he vetted
before Excom on 8 November, the day before he posted the present motion
to the members. It reads, in part, as follows:
The position of the Registrars Constituency regarding Domain Name Tasting
is stated below. It was approved by the Constituency with a vote in which
X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X
abstentions.
The Registrars Constituency (RC) of ICANN's GNSO takes the following
position regarding the activity of Domain Name Tasting
(Tasting).
1. The RC is in general agreement that Tasting should be curbed if not
eliminated altogether:
end quote:
However, after discussion with others in Excom, Tim emasculated his
original excellent motion with the present meaningless wording,
"Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority
support for a particular position on Domain Name
Tasting."
How can we reconcile the above with the following?:
X ballots were received with X in favor, X not in favor, and X
abstentions.
It is my strong position that we should support *no* position to GNSO
until we have had a proper plebiscite for this issue.