RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Domain Tasting - Outcomes Report version 1.4
thanks for the response.
I think your purported reasons are disingenuous given our repeated dialog on
this issue, and your continued commitments until you disengaged from the group
without notice.
Wrt #2, seems that is yet another problem with entities able to own multiple
registrar accreditations (i.e. some 100+ for eNom and Pool, at least, not to
mention the 3+ extremely outrageous Vazquez entities), for no apparent reason
other than to game the daily drop and AGP situations for profit of those
conglomerate entities. I think that is plainly ridiculous, anti-competitive,
unfair, and harmful to everyone else in the interested community, and has been
allowed to go on for far too long. It is a disgrace to ICANN and in need of a
remedy... but that is outside the scope of this list.
Still, I think it is not hard to distinguish kiters from 3d party transfers
to some extent, I think ICANN knows the 'families' of registrars and could
provide that information at least from what they know. I also think VRSN knows
this to some extent. Of course, there are probably other 'families' that have
tried harder to cover their affiliations. Anyway, had you provided the zone
data as promised, some analysis could have been done, even if not 'complete'.
... to be continued in other venues...
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);}
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 source
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.
Mike
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 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.
|