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 organizations that wanted stronger action came from the INITIAL ALAC statement and was included as part of the entire history. Those same organizations later agreed that the proposed motion was a reasonable compromise as noted above. I note that several other constituencies (including NCUC) also supported the motion as written, despite earlier and even ongoing concerns. Alan