RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP
Dominik and all, I totally myself agree. Our members have mentioned to me in my last teleconference similar concerns and suggestions you have made in your remarks below. As soon as I have a difinitive response voted upon by our members, I shall post it to all the appropriate places accordingly. A workaround IMO only is not desirable, but necessary if the registrars and ICANN is not going to do the oversite and make the technical changes to the registration software. It appears that Ross and likely other registrars as well as registries are not willing to do the necessary oversite, nor is ICANN. However I do not know if the registrars or registries are not willing to do the technical software changes. It appears from Ross's earlier comments that Towcows is not willing to do so, or is resistant to doing so due to cost reasons, although I can't see that the cost is all that great as I myself have done similar type changes on more the once occasion, such as the Saber system for flight reservation system. Yet I still understand and somewhat empathize with Ross's concerns. After all he does have a business to run... -----Original Message----- >From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> >Sent: Mar 31, 2008 4:49 AM >To: "Jeffrey A. Williams" <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Cc: aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP > > >Jeff, > >I also understand Ross's concerns about the impact of the AGP >elimination associated with registrars. Those affecting the registration >test process. I have not noticed any other more serious Ross's concerns. >On the other hand, the concept of AGP is so extremely abusive, even in >smaller volume, that we should try looking for an alternative >workaround. In many production systems the test environment is >accomplished by alternative/duplicate systems or using different >approaches, all with no AGP help at all. So this is principally doable. >See also Chris's comments on the topic. As for me, I am keen on helping >identify the workaround, if desired. > >To be honest, I am wondering a little about your hesitation between a >principal solution and ICANN's oversight, which effectiveness you have >been often criticizing ;-) Yes, the oversight will still be necessary >but I personally prefer principal solutions to oversight. For one simple >reason, to avoid possible tacit temptation to abuse it. > >Dominik > > >-----Original Message----- >From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf >Of Jeffrey A. Williams >Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:55 PM >To: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >Cc: aheineman@xxxxxxxxxxxx >Subject: RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP > > >Dominik and all, > > I also do not understand Roberto's recent comments regarding the >elimination of the AGP either. And I doubt anyone else really does >except for perhaps attempting to be supportive of Ross's recent remarks >and comments on same. > > But we should all try to understand Ross's reasoning as he is >associated with a registrar. As such, I am of the impression that he >believes that the AGP is a benifit for potential and existing >registrants. >To an extent he is correct in that belief. Yet the AGP is being abused >by Tasters and speculators that damages the public namespace in many >already articulated ways. Addressing those abuses and many of their >side effects such as Tasting, warehousing and kiting of Domain Names >needs to be eliminated. >What has been put into place isn't working, and won't possibly work to >address those, amongst other abuses of any TLD name space. > > From my point of view in part, either the AGP needs to be eliminated >due to the frequent abuses of it, or ICANN itself, meaning it's staff >needs to do much better oversite or all registries and registrars so >that those abuses are either eliminated, or addressed immediately so as >not to impact any TLD namespace. It appears given other comments from >Roberto, that the ICANN staff is not willing or able to do that level of >oversite, which brings us all back to the elimination of the AGP. > > As I see it, ICANN has a huge positive opportunity to do good works >here. Either they will address these abuse issues in a comprehensive >positive way or they will not. > > >-----Original Message----- >>From: Dominik Filipp <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx> >>Sent: Mar 31, 2008 1:24 AM >>To: Roberto Gaetano <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>, chris@xxxxxx, Ross Rader >><ross@xxxxxxxxxx> >>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP >> >> >>Roberto, >> >>I am deeply disappointed by this your post. Do you really think there >>has not been enough facts and evidence provided here worth listening to > >>and being seriously considered? The GA is primarily a mailing list, not > >>a survey, not a straw poll or any similar executive body with such >>authority legitimately granted or delegated. Collecting and hunting for > >>consensus, initiating and organizing surveys and straw polls is >>therefore not the major task of mailing lists in the first place. >>Providing the GNSO with thoughts, ideas, facts and evidence is the task > >>of the GA list in the first place. >>Sure, the GA is a standard mailing list and different people with >>different opinions, attitudes and motivations can subscribe here. But >>it is the duty of the GNSO to extract valuable ideas from the >>contributions. Saying that the comments collected on the GA are not >>worth considering for any other reason but the lack of evidence >>provided just proves incapability to cope with real bottom-up process >>with all its natural difficulties. >> >>I and some others here on the GA are struggling to collect facts and >>evidence and to elaborate on the issue considering those facts. This >>can be proven by number of posts sent on the list recently. Just read >>the recent posts sent on the GA and other domain tasting related >>mailing lists. And I am expecting similarly exact responses based on >>facts and evidence and not on wishes, feelings, impressions, and hidden >intents. >> >>We DO have a survey result regarding the AGP concept. The result of the > >>official survey conducted directly by the GNSO in the beginning of the >>first comment period on Domain Tasting issue. The result that clearly >>demonstrates a major public interest in eliminating the AGP. The result > >>that has not been seriously considered and discussed in the GNSO yet! >>What would you then expect from us? >> >>To be perfectly honest, Roberto, I have absolutely no idea what you are > >>talking about. >> >>Dominik >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On >>Behalf Of Roberto Gaetano >>Sent: Monday, March 31, 2008 12:33 AM >>To: chris@xxxxxx; 'Ross Rader' >>Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx >>Subject: RE: [ga] Call for Elimination of AGP >> >> >>> >>> Ross the GA doesn't get taken seriously because bottom up consensus >>> means nothing to ICANN or the registries who tell ICANN what to do. >>> It >> >>> doesn't get taken seriously unless we all agree with what the >>> registries and ICANN BoD members and staff are saying. >> >>I don't know why others do not take seriously the GA, there might be >>plenty of reasons. >>Mine is simply that I cannot take seriously a group where if four >>people shout louder, affirming there's consensus on something (like for > >>instance the elimination altogether of the AGP to fix a problem that is > >>a different one) this has to be taken as gospel, even if other people >>on the same list have argued different things. >>To me, you have consensus when there's a debate where people try to >>converge instead of talking past eachother, when there's a chairperson >>that coordinates the debate, and maybe call for straw polls to get the >>sense of the room (in the figured sense), when there's an interaction >>instead of a repetition of the same mantra by a tiny part of the >>assembly. >>Failing this attempt to get some sort of agreement, there is nothing >>worthed being listened to. >> >>> >>> The fact that it is not taken seriously is solid proof of ICANN >>> failing to meet it's mission altogether. >> >>And, pray tell, on a scale from 1 to 10, how would you rate the >>performance of the GA? >> >>Cheers, >>Roberto >> 'Regards, Jeffrey A. Williams 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.