<<< Date Index >>>     <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April

There was at least one comment on the At-Large list, and on the LAC 
list. There may have been other comments on RALO lists that I don't 
see (but were factored in by the ALAC reps). Other comments were in 
private e-mail or on non-public lists.

Alan

At 10/04/2008 11:08 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
>Alan,
>
>Thank you for your response. I am not able to recognize your input 
>in the teleconference discussion as your contributions are not 
>marked as those of yours anywhere in the transcript.
>
>Yes, I know about the explicit stronger position presented by the 
>ALAC in the past. That is why I am so surprised by this quick shift 
>in the position.
>
>Could you please send me some hints (mailing lists, forums, docs) 
>where I can take a look at the non-dissenting support of the RALOs 
>(including NARALO) for the current ALAC's updated statement?
>
>Thank you
>
>Dominik
>
>
>----------
>From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
>Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:45 PM
>To: Dominik Filipp; avri@xxxxxxx; krosette@xxxxxxx; lgasster@xxxxxxxxx
>Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@xxxxxxxxx; At-Large Staff; 
>alac@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx; GA
>Subject: Re: Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team 
>Teleconference held on 1 April
>
>At 10/04/2008 04:15 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:
>
>>Alan from ALAC joined the teleconference but I have not noticed any 
>>input advocating the preferred motion presented by RALOs. This is 
>>certainly not the way how public oice should be advocated.
>>
>>Dominik
>
>The statement that I submitted to the report regarding the proposed 
>motion was:
>The At Large Advisory Committee has consulted with its constituent 
>bodies regarding the proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting.
>Some constituents would have preferred to see a more aggressive 
>recommendation - specifically to eliminate the Add Grace Period 
>entirely. However, the ALAC recognizes that compared to some 
>alternative suggested ways of addressing domain tasting (such as 
>using a 90% threshold instead of 10%, a more modest "restocking 
>fee", more studies, or simply letting the domain name market evolve 
>without intervention), the proposed action is relatively aggressive.
>Given that the proposed motion includes the requirement to monitor 
>the implementation and effectiveness of the proposed limitations on 
>the AGP, the ALAC unanimously supports the proposed motion.
>As noted, this was approved by the ALAC with no dissenting opinions, 
>including from the NARALO which originally was the strongest group 
>to push for complete AGP elimination. The statement was aired on the 
>At-Large list with no negative comments. Accordingly I believe that 
>my participation in that teleconference was completely in line with 
>the current positions taken by the ALAC and RALOs.
>
>The page references in the report pointing to At-Large organizations 
>that wanted stronger action came from the INITIAL ALAC statement and 
>was included as part of the entire history. Those same organizations 
>later agreed that the proposed motion was a reasonable compromise as 
>noted above. I note that several other constituencies (including 
>NCUC) also supported the motion as written, despite earlier and even 
>ongoing concerns.
>
>Alan
_______________________________________________
ALAC mailing list
ALAC@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org