[NA-Discuss] [At-Large] Budget provisions relating to Domain Tasting

[Alan Greenberg]

The GNSO has chartered a small working group to say what kind of 
information is needed before starting a PDP, and I am on the group. 
If the At-Large community would like to make suggestions regarding 
this, I would be glad to incorporate them into the working group's 
deliberations. If in fact, At-Large would actually like to do some 
real research and determine "facts", I would be even more delighted 
to forward these.

Advisory committees may certainly investigate things and report to 
the Board, but the Bylaws do not claim that such investigation or 
reporting is the unique responsibility of the ALAC.

Regarding "I would recommend that if the ALAC really cares about this 
issue that the above questions be answered in an ALAC submission to 
the GNSO (along with any other pertinent findings that may be of use 
to the council).", I couldn't have said it better myself. As ALAC 
Liaison to the GNSO, I would be delighted to forward well thought-out 
positions, representative of the world-wide At-Large community, to Council.

Alan

At 08/07/2007 12:00 PM, Danny Younger wrote:
>The ICANN Staff Issues report on Domain Tasting raised
>a number of questions.  In view of these questions the
>GNSO Council decided to defer the initiation of a
>Policy Development Process (PDP) until such time as a
>"small ad-hoc group of GNSO representatives" reported
>back with their findings.
>
>The ICANN Staff questions are:
>
>1.  Who benefits from domain tasting, and who is
>harmed?
>
>2.  Who would benefit from cessation of the practice
>and who would be harmed?
>
>3.  How are registry operators being affected by
>domain tasting?
>
>4.  How are registrars being affected by domain
>tasting?
>
>5.  How are registrants being affected by domain
>tasting?
>
>6.  Are there different categories of registrants
>affected differently?
>
>7.  What enforceable rules could be applied toward
>domain tasting activity?
>
>8.  What would be the impact (positive or negative) of
>establishing limitations, guidelines or restrictions
>on registrars' use of the AGP?
>
>9.  What would be the impact (positive or negative) on
>registries, registrars, and registrants of eliminating
>the AGP?
>
>Frankly, fact-finding is supposed to be the
>reponsibility of the ALAC who under the bylaws is
>charged with reporting "their findings and
>recommendations to the Board".
>
>I would recommend that if the ALAC really cares about
>this issue that the above questions be answered in an
>ALAC submission to the GNSO (along with any other
>pertinent findings that may be of use to the council).
>
>
>
>
>
> 
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>Shape Yahoo! in your own image.  Join our Network Research Panel 
>today!   http://surveylink.yahoo.com/gmrs/yahoo_panel_invite.asp?a=7
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>ALAC mailing list
>ALAC at 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