The Motion: Move that the Registrar Constituency approve the following statement as Registrar Constituency Statement on Domain Tasting: The Registrars Constituency (RC) has not reached Supermajority support for a particular position on Domain Name Tasting. Below are statements of the views/positions espoused by RC members.
View 1. Many registrars believe that Tasting should be curbed if not eliminated altogether for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Tasting is causing general confusion among registrants and potential registrants trying to register domain names.
b. Tasting is eroding consumer confidence in the security and trustworthiness of domain name registration services and our industry in general.
c. Tasting is causing an increase in support costs for Registrars.
d. Tasting violates well-established codes of conduct and good practice intended to ensure security and stability by:
i. disturbing the stability of a set of existing services that had been functioning satisfactorily, namely the competitive domain name registration services developed by Registrars;
ii. disturbing other existing systems and value added services, for example those relying on Zone files, and various third party WHOIS services;

iii. increasing costs that must be absorbed by others not participating in or benefiting from Tasting.
e. Despite the long held tenet of "First do no harm," there has been no research, testing for potential disruption of existing services, public review, or comment prior to this high volume activity abruptly occurring in the DNS.
In summary, high volume Tasting activity has undermined expectations about reliable behavior and in so doing has reduced trust in the security and stability of the system and has increased costs for registrars, registrants, and others not participating in the activity.
View 2. Many registrars believe that Tasting should not be a matter of concern or action by the GNSO or ICANN for one or more of the following reasons:
a. Tasting takes place due to market demand, and the market should be allowed to evolve as demand dictates.
b. ICANN is not a regulatory body, and according to its own bylaws, coordinates policy development reasonably and appropriately related to technical functions of the DNS. ICANN should not be regulating market activity.

Posted By: The BestNetwork Solutions.

Kurt Pritz advised that the NSI practice is enabled by the AGP: putting
the name on hold for 5 days. If NSI is required to pay a transaction fee
then it is general opinion that the practice would end. John Jeffrey
confirmed that in conversations with NSI, a representative had indicated
that the service had already been revised since it was initiated, and
also that if ICANN were to impose a fee for the AGP than they would
likely roll back the service.

Steve Crocker advised that SSAC had spent a lot of time thinking about this and he made two observations. The AGP is the connective tissue
between NSI's goals in the new service and their ability to offer the
service, but it is not the right issue. Information supplied by the user
when checking name availability disadvantages the user in an unexpected
way and when exposed a registrant would not want the registrar to
operate in this way. Raising the price on five-day registrations is a
pragmatic approach but it does not get to the core value underlying
this. We may feel good about the fee but it does not get to the core of
what's going on. We should not casually drive by and address a serious
underlying issue with the fee. Regarding other ways to eliminate
tasting, removing the AGP as a registry contract requirement would not
necessarily be effective because a registry might choose to offer some
fee discount period for whatever reason that would effectively replicate
the AGP. Therefore, although ICANN might remove the AGP as a
requirement, it is not assured that this would remove this as an option.
If the transaction fee is imposed on add-grace deletes ICANN could
subsidize costs resulting from typos or fraud.

Whereas, the current version of all gTLD registry contracts provides for a five-calendar-day Add Grace period (AGP) following the initial registration of a domain during which a domain may be deleted and the sponsoring Registrar will be credited for the amount of the registration fee (see, e.g., http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-07-01mar06.htm); Whereas, the AGP was originally created to allow domain names that had been accidentally registered to be cancelled; Whereas, the practice of "domain tasting," by which names are registered and then deleted during the AGP, has grown at a very great rate since 2005, with tens of millions of domains registered and deleted each month; Whereas, it is apparent that the AGP is being used for purposes for which it was not intended; Whereas, abuse of the AGP is, in the opinion of the majority of respondents whose statements were collected by the GNSO Ad Hoc Group on Domain Name Tasting (4 October 2007 report), producing disadvantages in the form of consumer confusion and potential fraud that outweigh the benefits of the AGP; Whereas, the GNSO Council on 31 October 2007 resolved to launch a PDP on Domain Tasting and to encourage staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names registered and subsequently de-registered during the AGP; Whereas, it is the Board's view that abuses of the AGP should speedily be halted, while the positive benefits of the AGP to consumers should be retained; Whereas, the positive benefits of the AGP may include, among other things, avoiding fraud and monitoring, testing and development of registrars' provisioning, production and/or merchant gateway systems; Whereas, the Board believes that the withdrawal of ICANN's waiver of
ICANN's non-refundable transaction fee to the deletion of names within the AGP
will substantially end the practice of abusing the AGP; THEREFORE, the Board resolves (2008.01.04) to encourage ICANN's budgetary process to include fees for all domains added, including domains added during the AGP, and encourages community discussion involved in developing the ICANN budget, subject to both Board approval and registrar approval of this fee.
A voice vote was taken of all Board Members present and the motion was
approved by a vote of 13-0. Bruce Tonkin abstained from voting on this
item.

Venga deberian regularlo pero no eliminar el domain tasting. Creo es un derecho que si el dominio esta "defectuoso" le puedas "devolver" y registrar otro

Ya llego en la ICA newsletter