[ga] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April

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

Dear Kristina, Liz and others,

I've just gone over the teleconference transcript

http://gnso.icann.org/meetings/transcript-dt-wg-01apr08.pdf

which could be characterized as an unequal combat between presenting
your opinions and those of unknown "Men" (at least, unknown to me)
apparently and strongly defending the current draft motion as is.

As I expected, no arguments or evidence were addressed regarding the
different-view merits. There were addressed some but mainly those
advocating and clarifying the details of the current draft motion.

The sad thing about this is how easily you got dragged into thinking
that just same few people here are loudly screaming over the issue over
and over again. In fact, this remained the only argument during the
debate. No questions, let alone attempts to address what is actually
written in the posts. If you decided to start reading the posts one by
one you would find interesting ideas and some facts and evidence you
most likely have not heard about yet. I am not saying you have not done
so but I see no indication of the comment consideration in the
transcript, nor see I it in the Final Report.

I do not wonder the "Men" put all their efforts into discouraging the
comment consideration. If this happened it would just shed a bright
light on their weak and one-sided argumentation. Another sad thing is
that nobody seems to be really interested in seeking, collecting and
addressing contra-arguments to achieve objective and balanced discussion
position as stated in the Core Values. It is much more comfortable to
trivialize the effort by labeling the members as being loud voices
instead of considering the merits and taking it all into account, isn't
it?

So, some facts now. The 'few public voices' preferring the elimination
of the AGP motion are

- most views coming from RALOs and the general At-Large discussion list
(p. 28 and 58 in the Final Report), particularly the RALO from North
America,
- several ALAC members formally and strongly advocating (or advocated?)
the motion (p. 60, therein),
- 110 (64%) votes for the motion in the official GNSO public survey,
- an unspecified number of Internet users worldwide that have a say, and
- some loud voices from the jesters on the GA and perhaps other mailing
lists

So, if you've got a feeling that the GNSO could be accused of lack of
public input consideration then your feeling is damn right.

A funny argument mentioned in the transcript is a statement that by
eliminating the AGP the domain tasting practice can still survive. We
know that domain tasting, by its nature, is based on 5-day
free/very-low-cost AGP window during which and only which domains can be
tasted under essentially more profitable conditions than the standard
registration charge is. By eliminating this, the core of domain tasting
is eliminated as well and the practice will disappear as a phenomenon.
It is also to say that in uttermost cases the currently tasted names are
not worth registering at standard registration price. If they were no
tasting would be necessary at all and such names would be immediately
registered as inherently bringing revenue. Sure, there still will be
other sorts of speculation over names and also names that will earn
money from PPC advertising, but based on different principles than
domain tasting.
That is, another pseudo-argument that has been paid attention.

In fact, we here, I guess, would prefer to stay silent and more
constructive, but what can be done? 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
voice should be advocated.

Dominik