Fwd: [council] Revised Proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting

[Carlos Afonso]

I agree with Adam-san.

--c.a.

Adam Peake wrote:
> At 4:31 AM -0800 2/13/08, Robin Gross wrote:
>> Hello there,
>>
>> While we didn't vote on this issue today, we will probably vote on
>> this text or a similar version on the 28th at our next meeting.   It
>> is my understanding the Registrars and the Registries will not support
>> any policy to curtail DNT (based on discussions today in the mtg).
>>
>> Another possibility is just to END it all together.  Permitting a % of
>> deletions as below, was in part, meant as a compromise with Ry and Rr,
>> and since they won't support what is below, no point passing a motion
>> with a compromise when you don't get the support desired.
>> Certainly registrars would not be prevented from giving refunds within
>> a time-frame if they wanted to (i.e. let the market deal with
>> legitimate needs for refunds as happens in other services).
>>
>> I'm still very keen to hear what other NCUC'rs think about how to move
>> forward with Tasting.
>
>
> If the AGP were a case study at regulator summer school I think they'd
> decide it was bad policy, serves no useful purpose and the problems it
> allows just outweigh any potential benefit.  It should be ended.
>
> Names are a new market no one understands perfectly, but there's a lot
> of money to be made and a lot of very smart and sharp people looking for
> loopholes (I have no objection to people making money, the Bulgarian
> poet legend and .EU names is wonderful), but I think this makes economic
> fixes likely problematic.
>
> AGP is bad policy, so end it.  Or is that also impossible?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>> Thanks,
>> Robin
>>
>>
>> Begin forwarded message:
>
>