RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4

["Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>]

All,


The purpose of this exercise was to get all the facts out on the table.
The fact is that registrars use the AGP for a number of different
purposes and section 4.3 lists some of them.  Personally, I don't think
it matters how this information was derived.  I trust that the
registrars and their reps would not submit false information to the
working group and I think the rest of the group should have that same
level of trust.  If the registrars in our group can certify that these
responses were actually given by themselves or other registrars, why
should we shove their responses in an Annex?  

 

This is not a court of law where we are determining admissible evidence
from hearsay.  We are not a jury judging the reliability of answers
given.  We have one task and that is to gather information so that the
council can make an informed decision on whether to invoke a pdp or not.

If Jothan, Tim, Jeff and the other registrar reps will certify to us
that these were the actual responses (or a summary of the responses),
that should be enough.  If this were a pdp, this would be different.


I believe 4.3 needs to stay in the main body.

 

 

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Olof Nordling
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 5:14 PM
To: 'Jeffrey Eckhaus'; 'Rosette, Kristina'; owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version
1.4

 

Jeff and all,

It's not really a matter if "ICANN staff" (=me, Olof) having an issue
with anything, rather that there are views in the ad hoc group that
"ICANN staff" tries to reconcile in order to get a report out with the
support of the group as a whole.

Cheers

Olof

 

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Jeffrey Eckhaus
Sent: den 30 september 2007 22:28
To: Rosette, Kristina; olof nordling; owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version
1.4

 

All,

 

I agree with Tim Ruiz on this issue, the Registrars were asked for an
"Opinion Polling of Registrars regarding AGP". The statements that have
been provided are exactly what was requested. 

 

If ICANN staff has an issue, they should please direct this to the
Registrars Constituency if Section 4.3 as provided does not fulfill
their need as written:

To direct the ICANN staff to work with the ad hoc group to gather
further information and data about the domain tasting issue and make
further recommendations on effectively scoping a PDP;

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Rosette, Kristina
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 1:52 PM
To: olof nordling; marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx;
gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version
1.4

 

 

It would be acceptable to me to have the text of what is now section 4.3

being included as an annex with a reference sentence in the body of the

report.

 

To avoid any misunderstanding:  I would agree to having any part of 4.3

being included in the body of the report only if it was significantly

revised so as to be limited solely to facts.  For example:

 

RC developed [number] questions, which were [quote in entirety].

[Number of registrars} were polled; [number] responded/agreed to

participate.  [Number] of these registrars had been in operation before

AGP was introduced in [date].  [If polling was not open to all

ICANN-accredited registrars, identify how polled registrars were

identified and describe common characteristics].  None of participating

registrars had ever engaged in tasting or kiting. [or accurate temporal

and numerical description] 

 

[number] of respondents stated that they had used the AGP to provide a

refund to a registrant who had mis-typed its desired domain name.

[State frequency of such use, if asked, or state that didn't ask how

often or number of instances.]

 

[Number] of respondents stated that they had used the AGP for

[refund-related purpose].  [State frequency of such use, if asked, or

state that didn't ask how often or number of instances.]

 

Anything else would have to go into the annex.

 

Kristina 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: olof nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx] 

Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:22 AM

To: marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx; Rosette, Kristina;

owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version

1.4

 

Marilyn and all,

That's perhaps an idea!

Jothan & Kristina: Would Marilyn's proposal be acceptable to you?

Thanks!

Olof

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On

Behalf Of marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx

Sent: den 30 september 2007 00:00

To: Kristina Rosette; owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Olof Nordling;

gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: Re: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version

1.4

 

 

I agree with Kristina. The "conclusion document from the RC" written as

is is  more appropriate as an annex.... With a simple sentence of

reference in the body of the report.

 

Nothing aginst a piece like this written by a constituency, but is not

equivalent to a transparent poll. It can probably be fixed with a list

of the number of respondents/the list of questions asked/etc, on the

other hand if it was conducted more like a qualitative 'call out' which

is still interesting, but not the same as an open survey, just describe

the chacteristics of how the responses were gathered, and include as a.

Annex. 

Regards,

Marilyn Cade

 

 

-----Original Message-----

From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>

 

Date: Fri, 28 Sep 2007 21:52:27

To:"Olof Nordling" <olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version

1.4

 

 

All,

 

Attached are my suggested revisions to part 1 of 1.4.

 

I've copied into it the summary of the IPC RFI that I posted yesterday.

 

One revision I did not make, but believe would be helpful, is to include

the percentages that correspond to each reference to respondent rations

(x of y respondents).  

 

I object strongly to the inclusion of 4.3.  The RC could have conducted

its own Supplemental RFI.  It did not do so.  Based on the summary, the

straw poll appears to have been fully devoid of transparency, and the

"summary" relies solely on conclusory arguments and opinions.  It is my

view that retaining it undermines the legitimacy of the entire report.

I will seek further instructions from my constituency.  In the meantime,

I have made substantive revisions.  

 

Kristina 

 

   

 

-----Original Message-----

From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On

Behalf Of Olof Nordling

Sent: Thursday, September 27, 2007 11:31 AM

To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx

Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4

 

Hi all,

Please see my message below - it bounced at the ICANN server due to the

attachment being too big....!!!!

Now I have to send it IKEA-style, in two pieces, for you to assemble.

Here is part 1.

Best regards

Olof

 

-----Original Message-----

From: Olof Nordling [mailto:olof.nordling@xxxxxxxxx]

Sent: den 27 september 2007 16:59

To: 'gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx'

Subject: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4

 

Dear all,

Please find a brand new version of our group's report attached. It's not

yet a contender for the Nobel Prize in literature, I'ld say, but there

are plenty of novelties in relation to the previous version:

- new ccTLD annex and summary from Patrick J

- registrar poll section filled with text from Jothan F

- APWG and MarkMonitor (partly!) responses entered in annex 2

- response to the UDRP survey from Kristina R included in annex

- question 15 updated, with individual names of those giving consent

- new annexes for IPC survey and VeriSign request

- data on .biz and .org from Jeff N entered in 4.2

- some hyperlinks introduced to simplify life for the reader

- text edits done as agreed on call (I hope - do check, please!)

- BigPulse overview in annex, table frames nudged (OK now, Jothan?)

- and, and - what did I forget?......ouf

 

Now, with our ultimate deadline looming, your comments are needed by COB

Friday 28 September to enable a Final Draft to be circulated in time for

the final conference call next week. Then, the Final Version goes to the

GNSO Council on 4 October.

 

Wishing you happy reading!

 

Olof