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

[Danny Younger <dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>]

Dominik,

The NCUC and the ALAC are two sides of the same coin. 
They are both collections of non-commercial
organizations.  Yes, one has a wider remit than the
other, but just because the ALAC can potentially look
at numbering considerations doesn't mean that they do.

...and because it's basically the same group in two
different packages we have the same behavioral
patterns at play.  

This is how it normally works:

One person writes up a statement and puts it out for
comment.  Next, nobody bothers to respond.
The text is then adopted as a Constituency Statement
under the ridiculous principle that silence implies
consent.



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

> 
> 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
> 
=== message truncated ===


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