Dominik and all, Personally, I agree that there is no real NEED for the AGP. But the majority of the Registrars and registries perfer it. Our members solution, was a way in which addressing Domain Name Tasting that is effective and will eliminate Domain Name Tasting while at the same time keeping the AGP. However as you rightly point out, I as well as most of our members are very doubtful that either the registrars or ICANN can effectively do the necessary oversight our solution requires, but does offer them an oppertunity to demonstrate their interest in keeping it for whatever reasons they believe the AGP is useful. So if indeed ICANN is to fulfil it's mission, than it must take responsibility for doing so in a active and tangable way or it has and is still failing to do so. Remember ICANN introduced the Accreditation program to give confidance to the marketplace of Domain Name registration as safe and secure. -----Original Message-----

From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@dsoft.sk> Sent: May 3, 2008 8:01 AM To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> Subject: RE: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]

Jeff,

The thing is that AGP as a concept has no and never has had any legitimate reason for existence whatsoever. It is a flawed concept from the ground up allowing for comfortable life of registrars and perhaps with speculative intentions from the very beginning. Any prospective ICANN oversight related to it thus makes no sense either. Other businesses must live without such a prerogative and they live well.

I am still impressed by your persisting, though sometimes implicit, trust towards ICANN oversight. ICANN is not even able to oversee much more developed policies such as domain renewals (RegisterFly) or transfers (complaints being reported and ignored on daily basis), which is an evident and easily provable breach of existing contracts. How could you then expect ICANN to oversee such a jungle like AGP is with all the possible unexpected or yet unknown side effects it might bring?

By the way, Evan Leibovitch is one of the very few guys at ALAC who is doing something meaningful and who is able to loudly and firmly defend his position. NARALO was/is the only RALO explicitly supporting the AGP elimination.

Have a nice weekend

Dominik

-----Original Message----- From: Jeffrey A. Williams [mailto:jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2008 5:56 AM To: John Levine; Evan Leibovitch; dt-motion-21may08@icann.org; aheineman@ntia.doc.gov Cc: NA Discuss; Dominik Filipp Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]

John, Evan, and all,

"Everyone", which in the NARALO is a paltry few already spoke before the mis-communicated ALAC motion was submitted. So I can only guess that someone is not reading their Email fully. The consensus, although unmeasured, was actually that the AGP needed to go and/or be eliminated.

INEGroup's members had determined a more reasoned and practical solution that would allow for the AGP to remain, but eliminate Domain Name Tasting, not limit it. That solution is short, would require registrars to modify their registration software to only allow for 10 registrations/month per registrant, and if any were requested to be dropped during the AGP, those registrants would be banned from registering any domains for a set period of time or only allowed to register one Domain name per month for a period no less than one month and no more than two years. If that same registrant a second time registered domain names in any name space and again let any of them drop during the AGP he/she/it would be banned for a period of one year from registering any domain names. If that same registrant or registrar a third time registered any number of domain names in any name space and again let any of them drop or be placed in a "Parking status" would be banned permanently from ever registering any Domain names indefinitely AND the registrar or registrars involved would have their Accreditation revoked for a period of no less than 30 days and possibly indefinitely and would release all domain names in those name spaces to the pool for re-registration immediately.

The ICANN staff itself would be responsible for oversight and compliance of this policy and report all incidents publicly for the publics review and notice. All or any of the ICANN staff members assigned to doing said oversight that failed to do it's duty accordingly would be subject to retraining in good customer relations at ICANN's and the registrars associated expense or be summarily and immediately dismissed.

-----Original Message-----

...

From: John Levine <johnl@iecc.com> Sent: May 2, 2008 7:47 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: NA Discuss <na-discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [NA-Discuss] [Fwd: [ALAC-Internal] FW: Call for Comments on GNSO Domain Tasting Motion ... ACTION Required for RALO's and ALS input]

...

What says everyone? Do we make a statement as NARALO, or leave the GNSO doc to go to the board without comment?

Assuming the members of the NARALO still feel that the AGP would go, I think we owe the GNSO a comment.

Regards, John Levine, johnl@iecc.com, Primary Perpetrator of "The Internet for Dummies", Information Superhighwayman wanna-be, http://www.johnlevine.com, ex-Mayor "More Wiener schnitzel, please", said Tom, revealingly.

------ NA-Discuss mailing list NA-Discuss@atlarge-lists.icann.org http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/na-discuss_atlarge-list s.icann.org

Visit the NARALO online at http://www.naralo.org ------

Always diligent, Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 277k 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