[gnso-dt-wg] feedback on the questionnaire 'directions'

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am only an observer to this group, so don't have posting privileges, and
have asked the GNSO Secretariat to post my comments on the questionnaire
that the ad hoc group is developing. I have copied the chair. I speak as an
individual who asked to be added as an observer. 

 

The present discussion, as I can track it on the 'list' is focused on
possible 'solutions', but seems to be missing the need, as I thought was
made clear in the staff's issues report  for more data.  More data should
include more data about those who are being affected by 'tasting' and its
aftermath, not just those who are 'tasting', or seeing the implications of
more registrations, churn, etc. I see discussion about some of the ideas
that some parties have, particularly registrars and registries, but I don't
see sufficient questions that will help those who are being affected by
tasting, which includes those identified in the ALAC's request for an Issues
Report,  to be able to respond. 

 

This group needs to take into account that data gathering by a company, or
party who is NOT day to day a registrar or registry is complex and time
consuming. If the effort is to have legitimacy and enable feedback and
participation by a wide and diverse group of 'at large' registrants, and a
wide group of affected companies whose names are being  tasted, then the
questions need some rethinking, as does the time frame.  I had understood
that the ad hoc group was to develop the 'more data needed'. It seems to be
focused on 'support for solutions' outside of a PDP. Perhaps I
misunderstand. I am merely reading the list of comments. I have just
recently been added as an observer to the group. 

 

The group can easily get focused on the original need for 'more data'.  I
looked at Bruce Tonkin's post and commend it to the group for their
consideration. 

 

As to dealing with those who have mistyped, however few they may be in this
environment, it is feasible to develop a refund process, and not use that as
a rationale or excuse to avoid closing the loophole. But that too, is about
solutions. To address this issue, first, data is needed: what percent of
registrations involve 'mistyping' and requests for refunds associated with
mistyped name registrations" That is a suitable question for the
questionnaire. 

 

 

Overall, the questionnaire is much too focused on asking for feedback about
possible solutions. 

 

That is premature. The ad hoc group should focus on what is indeed
needed--how to get more data.  And what data, and how to make sure that a
broad, diverse set of affected parties can respond. As well as those who are
presently engaged in tasting. Input from all of these different parties is
needed. As well as data from registries and registrars. I have recently seen
some of the latter. And applaud it. 

 

 

Bruce identified the three relevant problems. The ad hoc group, although it
is limited in number and limited in time, should take up his suggestions
quite seriously.

 

They clearly define where more 'statistics' and more data are needed. .

 

The Ad Hoc group should avoid taking input at this stage on possible
solutions.  One must first define the problem(s) thoroughly, document the
data, and then move into consideration of solutions. And the consideration
of solutions is a Council task. Hopefully after a full PDP. 

 

Regards

 

Marilyn Cade