[ga] RE: ICANN Board Recommends Action on Domain Tasting

["Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>]

Dear Avri,

after having read the response from Paul Twomey, I realized that the
ICANN stuff recommendation to prefer the $0.20 fee provision applied on
disproportionate deletes to other possibilities had indeed been
initiated by the GNSO Council in its "GNSO Council resolutions 31
October 2007":

"The GNSO council resolves to initiate a PDP to address the issues set
forth in the Issues Report by Staff and in the Outcomes Report of the ad
hoc group and encourages staff to apply ICANN's fee collections to names
registered and subsequently deregistered during the add-grace period."

So my questions concerning this are

1. Why the GNSO Council formulated such a resulting statement before the
PDP on this subject was actually initiated? Especially, when the Initial
Report intended for further addressing the issue was yet not issued at
that time, on 31 Oct. 2007. Because the fee provision recommended here
IS a solution of the domain tasting practice.

I understand that the GNSO Council may vote on everything it finds
important and/or necessary, but the two points voted for and approved at
Los Angeles meeting seem to me contradictory. What for we need a PDP if
the solution is already formulated and offered to the ICANN stuff to
consider and might likely be eventually approved? Seems a bit schizy to
me, doesn't it? If approved any other possibility would then be
practically impossible to implement. Or, an intention?

2. How has the Council come up to the term "ICANN community support"
when preferring the least supported suggestion? Are there any sources
other than the online survey and the two related mailing lists,
altogether presenting prevailing interest in eliminating the AGP
concept, we should be aware of? Except the GNSO staff members who voted
for the fee suggestion in Los Angeles, of course. And few others who had
a chance to take part in the meeting. Or, was it a large public audience
actively participating on the approved result? Too many questions.

In my opinion, the second point about preferring the fee provision
should have not been considered at all as it makes the two points
mutually inconsistent and confusing.

I hope these and similar questions will be addressed at the upcoming
meeting in Delhi and adjusted accordingly so that the PDP can proceed
fluently without early recommendations.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Dominik Filipp, a GA List member