[gnso-dt-wg] Rework of motion
Here is the revised draft. I do not believe that I have changed the intent of it at all. I did make one change to the 5th Whereas, which I believe was in error, and I reworded the body of the motion to make it clear that it only applies to those contracts that include an AGP , to include the onerous details of the exception, and to remove the suggested contract wording.
Now for future suggestion. We launched the PDP with a supermajority vote (even though it wasn't needed), and I would really like to see any result adopted that way as well. It will make it much harder to the Board to fiddle with or more likely just toss it back to Council.
- I believe that the addition, currently in square brackets requiring reporting of exceptions is going to make it very to pass. The regular report will already show the number of AGP deletes and net adds. So exceptions (or non-free adds) will stick out like a sore thumb. Do we really wasn't to push for report?
- Despite the many negative comments, I think that we have done sufficient consultation. On the other hand, I am not at all sure that we have sufficiently listened to it. Specifically, the very strong registry statement that they could not support a one-size-fits-all approach, which is what we produced. Specifically, our approach penalizes PIR who have already took measures against tasting, and would surely do so again if their current change proved ineffective. We are also assuming the since 10% was a good fit for NeuStar and Afilias (by their own admission), the it is a good fit for VeriSign (perhaps it is, but I don't know).
- I like the approach that Mike suggested at the Thursday Council meeting (which was met with no enthusiasm, perhaps because of the entire AGP elimination alternative). What if we make this motional apply only to registries that do not already have "effective" mechanisms in place to combat/eliminate domain tasting? This would exempt PIR, and presumably NeuStar and Afilias. It lets other registries and particularly VeriSign pick their own tasting poisin, but with the requirement that it be demonstrably effective? Obviously we would need to craft the "effective mechanisms" statement carefully. One thing I like about this idea is that it is addressing tasting, not just the AGP, which could be effective at prohibiting a registry that want registrars to taste (using preferential pricing perhaps) from doing so.
- Lastly on a less substantive issue, I think the motion would be stronger it had far fewer Whereas's. Perhaps an opinion not shared.
OK, I think that I have tossed out enough potentially unpopular ideas for one e-mail.