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

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

I think a comparison is in order:

General RFI and IPC RFI - questions were subject to prior review and
comment by the group and have been disclosed.  
Registrar poll - questions were not subject to prior review and comment
by the group and have not been disclosed.

General RFI and IPC RFI - number of participants disclosed.  
Registrar poll - number of participants not disclosed.

General RFI and IPC RFI - characteristics of participants disclosed. 
Registrar poll - characteristics of participants not disclosed.

General RFI and IPC RFI - polling mechanism disclosed.  
Registrar poll - polling mechanism not disclosed.

General RFI and IPC RFI - poll results tracked and verifiable. 
Registrar poll - information provided thus far does not indicate poll
results were tracked and do not appear to be verifiable.

General RFI and IPC RFI - participant comments publicly available. 
Registrar poll - participant comments not publicly available.

General RFI and IPC RFI report summaries - Quantitative reporting of
verifiable data.
Registrar poll report summary - conclusory argument and qualitative
policy statements without verifiable data.

-*-

I've heard that a U.S. federal court recently entered a preliminary
injunction in a tasting-related cybersquatting case against an
ICANN-accredited registrar.  Hope they weren't included in the registrar
poll, but we'll never know - will we?





-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Sunday, September 30, 2007 10:25 PM
To: Neuman, Jeff; Rosette, Kristina; 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

Weighing in on the 4.3 discussion.

I am not neutral as to where in the document this text is placed -- I
view the registrar submission as a result of a polling initiative that
in fairness should be placed alongside other poll results.

To the same degree that survey respondents were given the opportunity to
provide open-ended textual comments, so too should we regard this
submission as a textual comment for inclusion in an appropriate poll
results section of the document.  Issues of veracity (or the lack
thereof) should not figure into our discussions as this standard is not
being applied to the other open-ended textual comments that have been
tendered.

regards,
Danny

P.S.  My apologies for not having the text for 4.4 ready yet... I've
been working non-stop on the RAA Revisions project, but I am expecting
to have some text ready for Olof within the next 24 hours.







--- "Neuman, Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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.
=== message truncated ===



       
________________________________________________________________________
____________
Pinpoint customers who are looking for what you sell. 
http://searchmarketing.yahoo.com/