Alan Greenberg wrote:
Alan, it seems to me that you are pushing your own agenda here. Eliminating the AGP will likely not be difficult nor time-consuming,
Unless the Board decides to do this in opposition to the registrars and registries, we will have to differ on that point. I would be delighted to be wrong!
Whether you are right or wrong is not the point. Opening with one's final offer is an absolutely miserable negotiating strategy, designed to diminish the public point of view in the coming process. The document does not express the public response that was solicited; elimination of the AGP represented a clear majority of input rather than a dissenting view as described. Not a single submission to ALAC indicated a need to maintain the AGP, even partially. It is one person's individual bias of expediency that is driving this statement, which is completely unfair to all of those who has expressed a contrary viewpoint. Now that all RALOs are in place, ALAC needs to re-examine the fallacy that silence means consent. It should see lack of input as a failure of its process rather than a rubber stamp of its biases. This is especially true when such bias flies in the face of all grassroots input received. If being honest means submitting a report on an issue stating "the public shows no interest" then that is a legitimate position. Of course that can never happen so long as silence=consent, allowing ALAC to mask its inability to solicit (or unwillingness to adopt) the view of a public it claims to represent. - Evan