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

[Adam Peake]

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: