RE: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Understood. So perhaps the report should simply summarize who responded
without drawing a conclusion. But I think it is still good to include a
summary of who has an AGP and who doesn't since that is an option put
forward as a possible outcome.

BTW, I am not on the calls because there were other registrars who
expressed interest in participating (Jeff, Jothan, etc.) and so I opted
to participate only by list.

Tim 


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3
From: "Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 26, 2007 9:45 am
To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>,  <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>


Tim,
 
The areas where I commented on users comments is the way that I read the
report, I am not commenting on the validity of anyone's comments, I
actually agree with many and think they are correct, I just wanted it to
be noted as they are opinions of the respondents, not facts from this
committee.
 
The ccTLD comment is based on what I read in this report such as the
reports below
 
.DE (Germany)/ Stephan Welzel
Domain tasting is not an issue under .de at all because we do not have
an Add Grace Period. Such an Add Grace Period is not needed in our case
because we charge our members ("registrars") not yearly but monthly fees
so that they have to pay only for a month, not a full year, if they
register a domain name and then discover that they (or their customers)
didn't actually want to register it.
 
NL (The Netherlands)/ Roelof Meijer
.NL has a seven-day grace period to correct DNS errors, but not an
add-grace period like other TLDs. Upon (first) registration, the
registrant pays  0.50 for the registration and  0.90 subscription fee
per quarter
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 10:37 AM
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus
Cc: Olof Nordling; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3
 
Jeff, I don't agree with your suggested changes.
 
1.2 The responses were a fair cross-section in my opinion. In fact,
registrants, non-commercial, and individual internet users outnumber the
IP respondents. The registry and registrar count may seem low but are
not when considering the population of each category.
 
The comment in the report regarding ccTLDs' AGP is based on the actual
responses received from the ccTLDs. I believe it is accurate as written.
 
4.1 The report is not declaring Mark Monitor's and CADNA reports as
statistical and factual. It is simply saying that some respondents
listed them in response to that question, which is absolutely true.
 
Regarding the eight responses submitted through the email list, no such
assertion of fact is being made. It simply says the responses were
included in the overview of the Big Pulse results. So you may not agree
with the contents of those responses, but it would be inappropriate to
characterize them any differently than the other results. Since I
submitted one of those responses I object to any attempt to have this
report cast dispersions on any of the responses that people have gone
through the time and trouble to submit, whether I agree with them or
not.
 
 
Tim 
 
 
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3
From: "Jeffrey Eckhaus" <jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, September 26, 2007 8:28 am
To: "Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>,  <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
 
Here are my comments in the document. There are only a few
 
Thanks
 
Jeff
 
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Wednesday, September 26, 2007 4:44 AM
To: Jeffrey Eckhaus; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3
 
Jeff,
Redline version (for many small changes) or text in a mail or annex (for
longer single pieces) or any other method you may think of - your
choice,
really. Thanks for asking!
Best regards
Olof
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus
Sent: den 26 september 2007 02:53
To: Olof Nordling; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3
 
 
Olof,
 
What is the preferred method for sending comments? 
 
Thanks
 
Jeff
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Tuesday, September 25, 2007 11:02 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] DT Outcomes Report - new draft, 1.3
 
Dear all,
Attached please find a new version of the report for your review and
comments.
Changes in this one are:
- Mike's comments incorporated
- comments included in Annex 2 for 8 RFI email responses 
- BigPulse overview updated with manually entered ballots for the same
- corresponding figures updated in section 4.1
- some typos rectified
Wishing you happy reading!
Olof