John L wrote:
I'm with Roberto and Danny. If we're reprsenting registrants, we should say that from the registrants' point of view the AGP is a failure and the world would be better off without it.
Exactly; that should be the main statement. While a willingness to compromise can follow, it is reasonable and necessary to indicate with absolute clarity that the AGP's very existence works to the detriment of Internet users and non-exploitive registrants. (Obviously _some_ registrants like the status quo. :-P ) Supposedly ICANN is looking to us (At-Large) to provide exactly this kind of input. If not us, then who? It needs to be put on the record that AGP is contrary to the public interest, and we're the only constituency able to do so. Of course ICANN is welcome to disregard this advice or to attempt some kind of diplomatic accommodation. Our constituency don't even have a voting spot on the Board. But if this ("AGP is evil") is our stance it must be put forward clearly and unambiguously, so that nobody can argue that we were "kind of" OK with it because we later were forced to accept/negotiate a partial measure. IMO it's important that our compromise position not be seen as our opening one. - Evan