Hello Dominik,
I would recommend that the participants of the teleconference 13 May raise a demand to reconsider the current ALAC statement on domain tasting in favour of the previously supported stronger position based on the AGP elimination, as it much better addresses the concerns of the public community.
The way it was put to us -- those of us who strongly advanced abolishing the AGP -- was essentially this: "Our primary goal is getting rid of tasting, which will likely happen by widely mandating the partial measures already initiated by two registries. Total AGP elimination will be strenuously opposed by the financial interests, so there's no way that will happen. Why back a position that has no chance of succeeding? We should be seen as going along with a broadly-supported measure that directly addresses tasting and has a chance to be implemented." My analysis of this is twofold: - ALAC does not yet have the maturity nor the confidence to advance a position that it perceives to be extremely unpopular with other constituencies, even if that position accurately reflects the public sentiment. - It's always easier to attack the symptom than the cause, even though leaving the cause intact will likely lead to future problems. Tasting is the symptom, AGP is the cause. While the currently proposed partial measures will indeed reduce much tasting, leaving the AGP untouched appears to be a clear invitation to bad agents to invent new forms of abuse. I have personally come to the conclusion that ALAC, in its current form, will do whatever it can to avoid confrontation with other constituencies. Some of this sentiment is understandable, given the limitations imposed on it by the nature of its constitution. After all, even GNSO is only now coming to realize the detrimental effects of having voting members who are unaccountable to anyone. Indeed, one can easily argue that ICANN as a whole is scared of confronting the registries and registrars, given the problems to date in even enforcing existing policy. Other factors arise from the broad internal diversity of ALAC, within which the desire to achieve consensus will usually lead to compromise positions. As a result, I can accept advancing the current partial answer to tasting with the understanding that this is a transitional action. AGP elimination remains the ultimate goal -- at least within NARALO -- though I am unsure if ALAC in its current form is even capable of advancing that position as forcefully as will be necessary to succeed. I am prepared to accept this situation, pending the ALAC review. I myself have certainly not been shy in my testimony to Westlake, with supporting evidence being presented as recently as a conference call yesterday. I am looking forward to some badly needed reforms, which will be required to take ALAC to its next level of maturity and confidence. That, Dominik, is my personal answer regarding why I have not been pushing this issue harder. ALAC has enough other things on its plate. :-) - Evan