[ga] RALO's support for the ALAC's updated statement

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

Alan,
 
Well, I have visited all public mailing lists enumerated at
http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo
<http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo>  and have read all
mails related to domain tasting (by subject title) that were posted
during March and April, as well some others. I was not able to find any
supportive contribution from RALOs to the updated statement. Perhaps
they are somewhere else, or I have not come across them...
 
I also subscribed to domain tasting working group DT-WG list but the
list is empty. Were the posts replaced somewhere else or didn't any
contribution come in?
 
Any idea where the sources are?
 
Thank you
 
Dominik

________________________________

From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 6:35 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


There was at least one comment on the At-Large list, and on the LAC
list. There may have been other comments on RALO lists that I don't see
(but were factored in by the ALAC reps). Other comments were in private
e-mail or on non-public lists. 

Alan

At 10/04/2008 11:08 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:


        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
<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