Danny, First of all, I understand and agree that this s not your "normal constituency statement. While I do not agree with the intent or the tone of your point 1, I think that the other two points are accurate. I can certainly expand on them if you think it preferable. For point 2, I have not heard any new arguments that were not made originally. For point 3, perhaps it is not your opinion, but in talking to many others over the last months, that is exactly what was expressed. Some of the mechanisms suggested may not work (such as a $0.05 fee similar to that imposed by PIR), and that will have to be the subject of further work. Others such as fully eliminating the AGP will not be acceptable to registrars. Various measures have been informally discussed which would require unilateral action on the part of registrars or registries, and there are ICANN budget measures which would require the agreement of registrars. But I don't think it really matters to At-large as long as the measure(s) prove effective. The recent Dell legal action could significantly impact tasting if and when it reaches a conclusion. All told, I am not of the opinion that it matters a lot to us. The import is that the measures be highly likely to work and not simply alter the gaming methodology. I believe that the leadership in identifying the most palatable and effective remedy is going to have to come from the registries and registrars. They have generally shown that they support some sort of action and if they do not support whatever remedies are proposed, it will not get the council votes to approve them. Regarding point 1, although we have no particular guidance at this stage, I plan to be active on Council regarding this issue, and should work groups be charted to do further particular work (as is expected), and am hopeful that At-large people will actively participate. Hopefully we will get better at getting formal statements from out "constituency", but to date that has not happened with for any issue. Certainly a situation that we need to be concerned about, but not something that will change overnight. Alan At 01/12/2007 03:11 PM, Danny Younger wrote:

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

_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

At-Large Official Site: http://www.alac.icann.org ALAC Independent: http://www.icannalac.org