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

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

Danny,

We'll see. I just want to be correct.

By the way, the NCUC's updated statement is similarly surprising to me
than that of ALAC's. For the same reason.

Don't you know what's gone on there?

Dominik


-----Original Message-----
From: Danny Younger [mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2008 3:49 PM
To: Dominik Filipp
Cc: GA
Subject: Re: [ga] RALO's support for the ALAC's updated statement

Dominik,

You didn't find any because they don't exist. The ALAC system is a sham.
It always has been. They pretend that they have working groups, but as
you have correctly discovered, no one participates in them.  

Danny


--- Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> wrote:

> 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
>       
> 
> 
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com