[ga] NCUC's updated statement on Domain Tasting

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

Hello Robin,

The NCUC's updated statement supporting the current Domain Tasting draft
motion also states:

"Some public comments expressed concern that allowing an "extraordinary
circumstances" exception for refunds may amount to a loophole rendering
the entire resolution unenforceable. NCUC does not share this concern
and believes that the proposal is narrowly tailored enough that it will
be able to prevent the sort of abuse of the AGP that the pending
proposal in intended to eliminate."

a) My question is what sort of evidence and/or facts your belief that
the "extraordinary circumstances" exception is not unenforceable is
based on? Also, what sort of non-commercial public organization support
has been gained for supporting this provision?

In my understanding, the draft formulation regarding this provision is
too vague and mostly expresses desires than factual findings and
effective mechanisms how to enforce this. The wording in its current
form does not give any formal guarantee that the expected goals will be
actually achieved.

b) Do you know that the proposed 10% AGP cap of free deletes still
allows for over 100,000 free deletes to be performed each and every
single month? Isn't it too much? Given that the provision above could be
gotten around, the number of free deletes can be much higher.

c) Do you think that the position "NCUC believes the 6 March motion
represents a fair compromise, and should eliminate the abuse of the AGP
without placing undue restrictions on registries and registrars." better
addresses the non-commercial organization needs the NCUC should be
defending?

In my opinion, the NCUC's updated statement should have raised
legitimate concerns on these questionable provisions and to express a
need to refine the proposal by postponing the final position statement,
instead of presenting a mere but formally legitimate support for the
draft motion as is.

Regards

Dominik Filipp, a GA list member


> Hi Danny,

> I'm not sure I understand what you are asking.
> Are you suggesting that NCUC should not comment
> on the pending motion? There will be a
> council vote on the motion on 17 April.

> I don't agree that design team failed to put
> forward a valid motion.
> Now is the time for the public comment, debate,
> and discussion on the proposal. If the motion
> should be to do something else, now is the
> time to say so. And I am listening.

> Thanks,
> Robin

On Apr 1, 2008, at 1:06 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

> Hello Robin,
>
> There is a lively debate underway on the General
> Assembly discussion list regarding an option that has
> previously been raised by many in the public realm
> --the complete elimination of the Add Grace Period.
>
> As you are aware, the GNSO team that put forward the
> current motion did not publicly discuss, debate or
> otherwise consider this particular option in their
> mailing list discussions.
>
> You will also recall that the Report of the Ad Hoc
> Group on Domain Tasting stated:  "A change to the
> status quo in the AGP, including the potential
> elimination of the AGP, is considered as one of the
> potential remedies to domain tasting."
>
> As I am of the view that all options (and their
> respective pros and cons) should be evaluated prior to
> arriving at a formal constituency statement, I would
> ask you to delay ratification of the NCUC Statement
> until such time as the debate on this topic has
> properly run its course.
>
> best wishes,
> Danny