ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

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

  • To: Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx>, Francesco Cetraro <francescoc@xxxxxxxxx>, gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4
  • From: Mike Rodenbaugh <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Tue, 2 Oct 2007 19:23:56 -0700 (PDT)

Paul, good to hear from you.  Since you apparently are re-engaging with the 
group at long last, do you care to offer any explanation for inclusion in the 
Report, as to why you promised to provide us zone file data several months ago, 
and many times since, and then failed to provide same or to respond to further 
requests re status over the past 6 weeks?  That data could have been useful to 
the group, and could have been procured elsewhere had you not promised to 
provide it, repeatedly, early on in the process.
  Please advise, thanks.

Paul Stahura <stahura@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}  .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}        
        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.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy