Alan and all, Do we have any difinative evidence that this "Factoring in" was actually done? Do we even have any empirical evidence of such? I haven't seen any and cannot seem to find any either... -----Original Message-----

From: Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> Sent: Apr 10, 2008 9:34 AM To: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk>, avri@acm.org, krosette@cov.com, lgasster@gmail.com Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush <barrister@chambers.gen.nz>, alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org, At-Large Staff <staff@atlarge.icann.org>, GA <ga@gnso.icann.org>, twomey@icann.org Subject: Re: [At-Large] Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April

There was at least one comment on the At-Large list, and on the LAC list. There may have been other comments on RALO lists that I don't see (but were factored in by the ALAC reps). Other comments were in private e-mail or on non-public lists.

Alan

At 10/04/2008 11:08 AM, Dominik Filipp wrote:

...

Alan,

Thank you for your response. I am not able to recognize your input in the teleconference discussion as your contributions are not marked as those of yours anywhere in the transcript.

Yes, I know about the explicit stronger position presented by the ALAC in the past. That is why I am so surprised by this quick shift in the position.

Could you please send me some hints (mailing lists, forums, docs) where I can take a look at the non-dissenting support of the RALOs (including NARALO) for the current ALAC's updated statement?

Thank you

Dominik

---------- From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca] Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 3:45 PM To: Dominik Filipp; avri@acm.org; krosette@cov.com; lgasster@gmail.com Cc: Peter Dengate Thrush; twomey@icann.org; At-Large Staff; alac@atlarge-lists.icann.org; GA Subject: Re: Some remarks on Domain Tasting Design Team Teleconference held on 1 April

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 Regards,

Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 281k members/stakeholders strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" - Abraham Lincoln "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L multiplied by P: i.e., whether B is less than PL." United States v. Carroll Towing (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] =============================================================== Updated 1/26/04 CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng. INEG. INC. ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com My Phone: 214-244-4827