While I appreciate Alan's endeavor to arrive at a Statement, I am dissatisfied with the proposed ALAC Statement on Domain Tasting. The Statement as written does nothing more than report that: (1) ALAC is pleased that someone else will do the real policy-formulating work (2) ALAC has no new concerns (prior concerns have already been cited in an Issues report) (3) as long domain tasting is reduced or eliminated, ALAC has no preference as to how this is accomplished. In my view, such a Statement is not sufficiently helpful. Constituency Statements called for by the GNSO ask for the following: (1) positions to be taken -- as in, do we support the elimination of the add grace period or do we support the imposition of registrar-level transaction fees during the AGP, or do we support something else? (2) an analysis of the degree of support for a policy position by way of a tally of the vote held by the group on the policy choices that were enumerated (3) a listing of all positions held by all parties to the debate (4) A clear statement of how the constituency arrived at its position detailing specific group meetings, teleconferences, or other means of deliberating an issue, and a list of all members who participated or otherwise submitted their views (5) An analysis of how the issue would affect the group, including any financial impact on the group (6) An analysis of the period of time that would likely be necessary to implement the policy. For an example of what a Statement should look like, please see http://www.gtldregistries.org/news/2007/2007-10-04-01.pdf or look at http://www.ncdnhc.org/policydocuments/PDP-Dec05-NCUC-CONST-STMT-JUNE2007.pdf ____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/sports;_ylt=At9_qDKvtAbMuh1G1SQtBI7ntAcJ