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

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

Kristina,

 

Your statement about having to trust the registrars because they are our
customers is completely out of line and untrue.  Registries and
registrars are not always aligned...and in fact, there are many times
where we are diametrically opposed.  So, I would ask that your refrain
from such statements.  Not only is it untrue, but it only detracts from
the mission of the group.

 

That said,  I would propose that it be in the main body and drop a
footnote stating that the IPC objects (or at least Kristina objects).

 

 

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

Business Development 

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

________________________________

From: Rosette, Kristina [mailto:krosette@xxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:26 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Olof Nordling; Jeffrey Eckhaus;
owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] RE: Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version
1.4

 

Section 4.3 goes far beyond listing the ways in which "participating"
registrars claim to use the AGP, and provides far more than
"information".  That is part of my objection to it.

 

You have to trust the registrars and their reps - they're your
customers.  I do not have to do so.  Moreover, there is nothing in
Section 4.3 that provides any basis for me to trust the veracity of its
contents.  

 

I maintain my objection.

 

Kristina

        
________________________________


        From: Neuman, Jeff [mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 9:11 PM
        To: Olof Nordling; 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

        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