RE: [registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement
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)
Take this as a second Tim. Adrian Kinderis Chief Executive Officer AusRegistry International Pty Ltd Level 8, 10 Queens Road Melbourne. Victoria Australia. 3004 Ph: +61 3 9866 3710 Fax: +61 3 9866 1970 Email: adrian@ausregistry.com Web: www.ausregistryinternational.com The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipients only. It is subject to copyright and may contain legally privileged and confidential information and if you are not an intended recipient you must not use, copy, distribute or take any action in reliance on it. If you have received this communication in error, please delete all copies from your system and notify us immediately. -----Original Message----- From: owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-registrars@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz Sent: Monday, 12 November 2007 10:53 PM To: Jay Westerdal Cc: Eric Brunner-Williams; Registrars Constituency; Ross Rader Subject: RE: [registrars] Motion to adopt Tasting Position Statement 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)
participants (2)
-
Adrian Kinderis -
Tim Ruiz