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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

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