ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[ga]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Re: [ga] List Rules

  • To: Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: Re: [ga] List Rules
  • From: Karl Auerbach <karl@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 31 Mar 2008 14:35:45 -0700


Danny Younger wrote:
Hello Eric,

As much as I like motions, we would in a better
position if we could draft an issues paper laying out
the pros and cons of the AGP.

On data point about AGP:

I was on the board when it was voted in as part of a massive contract (I voted against, but for other reasons, most notably that the then DNSO had decided against the contracts.)

What is interesting from the point of AGP is that it was never brought to the attention of the board by staff or anyone else.

In other words the only way anyone on the board would have noticed the existence of the AGP (one of several grace periods defined in those contracts) would have been to discover it in the mountain of paper and appendices. Let's just say that I am not aware that anybody noticed, much less appreciated the implications.

So it is reasonable to come to the conclusion that ICANN's board did not make an informed decision about AGP. If anything, the words "grace period" tended to mean "Redemption Grace", which is something quite separate and apart from AGP.

What I am getting back is this: typically one gives respect to decisions already made. However, it is open to discussion whether the AGP choice made by the board, being a choice made by default rather than reasoned discourse, deserves that presumption.

                --karl--




<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>