RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4
- To: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx>, "Francesco Cetraro" <francescoc@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4
- From: "Paul Stahura" <stahura@xxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 3 Oct 2007 15:34:00 -0700
Yes, I was away from the list for a while, I got busy with my day job.
To answer your question
1) I thought you were able to get better information from another
a. It was posted to this list in early august I think, about the
time I stopped looking at this list
2) As also repeatedly said back then, my information is not
complete because I cannot see from the zone which names are deleted by
one cred and then immediately re-registered because they do not
disappear from the zone and then reappear, so its hard to distinguish
them from transfers.
From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxrodenbaugh@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 7:24 PM
To: Paul Stahura; Francesco Cetraro; gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4
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:
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
From: Francesco Cetraro [mailto:francescoc@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 10:51 AM
Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report
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
>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
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.
Registry Relations Manager
Ascio Technologies inc.