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

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

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