Re: [council] Considering the work of the Tasting Group
- Subject: Re: [council] Considering the work of the Tasting Group
- From: Ross Rader <ross@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 22:47:22 -0400
- Cc: Council GNSO <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- In-reply-to: <4703BF24.firstname.lastname@example.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Organization: Tucows Inc.
- References: <4703BF24.email@example.com>
- Reply-to: ross@xxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Thunderbird 18.104.22.168 (Macintosh/20070728)
What is the status of this request? I am not prepared to vote on a
motion regarding this work until I can consider the report with the
benefit of these answers.
It does not make sense for us to consider developing new policy if we
have existing terms on the books that can otherwise deal with the
behaviors we are concerned with.
Ross Rader wrote:
In order to properly consider the forthcoming recommendations of the
working group on tasting, I would like to get some further data from
staff as background information.
Specifically, I would like to understand staff experience in enforcing
clause 3.74 of the Registrar Accreditation Agreement.
a) How many enforcement cases have been opened related to this clause in
the last 5 years?
b) How were these cases resolved? (identifying information is not
necessary, but specifics would be useful)
c) Does staff view 3.7.4 as an effective hedge against abuse of the AGP,
if so, why? If not, why not?
Would it be possible for you to pass this request along to staff? My
instinct tells me that this is more of an enforcement failure than it is
a policy failure and I'd like to understand this better before I vote on
initiating a PDP.
Director, Retail Services