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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Kristina,

I would have no objection to placing your comments
regarding the characteristics of the registrar poll in
the formal record alongside the registrar poll
results.  Those that read this Outcomes Report are
entitled to know that WG members have issues with
several aspects of this particular poll.

regards,
Danny

--- "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===



       
____________________________________________________________________________________
Take the Internet to Go: Yahoo!Go puts the Internet in your pocket: mail, news, 
photos & more. 
http://mobile.yahoo.com/go?refer=1GNXIC