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

["Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>]

Would you please identify by whom the registrars were asked for an
"opinion polling of registrars regarding AGP"?  
 
________________________________

From: Jeffrey Eckhaus [mailto:jeckhaus@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 4:28 PM
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