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

["Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>]

>From my perspective I think that what Francesco says is accurate, as
well as Tim's comments from 9/30

eNom agrees with the findings in 4.3.  There are least 4 or 5 reasons
why AGP should be kept that have nothing to do with "tasting".

Those need to be disclosed so the reader can make their own decision.

 

 

________________________________

From: Francesco Cetraro [mailto:francescoc@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:51 AM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4

 

Hi All,

I have been following the discussion of this WG and now on the outcome
report as an observer, respecting the wishes expressed by part of this
WG at the beginning of the works not to be "flooded" with messages from
the registrars representatives: besides a couple of posts I have been
just following the debate and I have also completed the bigpulse
questionnaire on behalf of the registrar I represent, as it was my
understanding that would be the best way of submitting our point of view
in a way that would be easy for this group to use in its report.

I would however like to make a point on the discussion on the section
4.3 of the outcome report, as I honestly do not understand how it can be
considered as harmful or misleading in its current content and position.

>From what I understood of the mandate of this WG when it started its
works, the idea was to gather information, facts and the opinions of the
parties involved on the subject of Domain Tasting, as much as possible
in an impartial and balanced way in order to provide the necessary
background for a possible PDP and a final decision on domain tasting,
whether it is a bad thing and if so how to stop it.
In other words, in my eyes the task of this WG was to provide
information for further discussion, not to find solutions.

Although I am personally strongly against domain tasting I have tried to
keep as much as possible an open mind on the subject, and forced myself
to consider all possibilities and solutions rather than insisting on
what seemed to be the easy way out.

The way data from the different constituencies and involved parties was
collected is obviously dependent on the way each one of these groups
normally works: I can guarantee you that all the information provided by
registrars was collected through the official mailing list of the
Registrar Constituency, which is the channel we use for all our
discussions. It was presented to this WG by the active representatives
of the Registrar Constituency in this WG exactly as it was received, and
to the discussion about them there was participation from both
registrars that do engage in domain tasting but also from many
registrars who do not: I think it is worth noting that probably the
discussion within the RC was the only one where both sides of the issue
had a chance to be represented equally.

Other Constituencies might work differently than the Registrars, and I
do not question the legitimacy of their findings as presented by their
representative just because of the methodology used to collect them. At
the same time I would expect the same kind of respect for the "modus
operandi" of the Registrar Constituency: like me, many other Registrars
in the constituency are strongly against Domain Tasting, so if there
were any reason to doubt of the quality of the data provided and used
for section 4.3 of the report we would be the first ones to protest
loudly.

In my opinion section 4.3 gives a chance to the reader of the report to
understand a bit better what the AGP is, and actually removing this
section would flaw the quality of the report more than if we were to
keep it as it is. Again, the point of this WG is to collect information
without withholding any part of it that could help people understand
better the situation at hand and make a balanced decision: allow me to
remind you that removing the AGP is not the only solution to Domain
Tasting, and thus it should not be treated as such just because part of
this WG believes that is the right way to go.

I represent a registrar that in last year has probably deleted domains
during the AGP a total of 5 times, so honestly I could not care less if
ICANN decides to remove it: on the other side I am convinced there are
better ways of getting rid of domain tasting (by punishing hard the
registrars that engage in such activities, like I wrote in my reply to
the RFC on bigpulse) and I want to make sure that who needs to take the
final decision gets the full picture.

Best Regards
Francesco Cetraro
Registry Relations Manager
Ascio Technologies inc.