RE: [gnso-dt-wg] Final Draft report, Rodenbaugh edits
Mike- I am delivering, as I offered to the list, a replacement for section 4.3 that contains the bracketed areas that are contested, and includes a 5th use of the AGP, while adding contains some of the methodology and statistical support from the registrars. Please find it attached. It replaces 4.3 in its entirety as was distributed by Olaf on Sunday reflects many edits suggested by BC or IPC, but does leave much of the essence intact. Again, as I have mentioned contested areas are left intact but are bracketed. I strongly disagree with removal of ANY language, most notably that which identifies the impacts from each of the proposed solutions from 4.3, this is important because it keeps relevance for the reader who is ultimately making their decisions and allows them to do so aware of all impacts and facts, and that includes the significant business disruption that could be experienced by registrars and the degradation of service impact to registrants. There were registrars that used this straw poll as a manner to respond to the working group who in essence are being silenced by redacting any parts of it. The elimination of the AGP is bad for most every registrar, and they are entitled to express it, or are at least entitled to express how disruptive such an elimination would be to specific, non-tasting related areas of use, and that is what would be silenced with these edits. I also strongly disagree with simply burying the content of 4.3 somewhere in an annex. In the interests of not showing any bias, I find it hard to justify making edits to remove areas that identify specific impacts or commentary about how potentially destructive the elimination of AGP could be in a pragmatic manner while leaving the final summarization intact within 4.6: ..." Virtually all respondents made clear that they believe the negative effects of domain tasting far outweigh the benefits, if any, and thus believe the best possible solution is elimination of the AGP". If there can be a statement in summary for any section with such powerful generalization and prejudice about one of the proposed solutions, it looks like fair game to allow these to remain in 4.3, but I could be missing something. As I mentioned in last week's call, elimination of AGP is something that should be weighed in on by people who work with it every day and understand its uses beyond those that this ad-hoc group was formed to report on, so that the findings are balanced. I am asking for the attached to be the final version contained in the report, adapting any changes we discuss on the call in the morning, and for it not to get buried in any annex. -Jothan Jothan Frakes Oversee Domain Services ...................................................... 515 S. Flower Street, Suite 4400 Los Angeles, CA 90071 direct +1.213.925.5206 cell +1.206.355.0230 jfrakes@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx www.domainsponsor.com <http://www.domainsponsor.com> Confidentiality Warning: This e-mail contains information intended only for the use of the individual or entity named above. If the reader of this e-mail is not the intended recipient or the employee or agent responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, any dissemination, publication or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. The sender does not accept any responsibility for any loss, disruption or damage to your data or computer system that may occur while using data contained in, or transmitted with, this e-mail. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify us by return e-mail. Thank you and have a nice day. No lawyers were harmed in the creation of this disclaimer. ________________________________ From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2007 8:23 PM To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] Final Draft report, Rodenbaugh edits Attached please find my redline of version 1.5. Many thanks to Olof for his outstanding work compiling this report. As to section 4.3, I appreciate all the input on this. I think it makes most sense and is most fair to excerpt and edit the submission in section 4.3, to keep it more factual and less opinionated, particularly since it is very unclear what was asked, to whom, and who responded how. Of course, the entire submission will be included as an Annex. This is consistent with our treatment of all the other opinion information, where we have attempted to summarize it factually and then append the entire responses as an Annex. For tomorrow's call, I intend to go through this redline and resolve any outstanding issues. We will then circulate a proposed Final Report shortly after the call, and allow any final comments via list until 2pm Thursday, PDT. I will then finalize the report and submit it to Council. Thanks, Mike Attachment:
Section4_3_20071002_jf.doc
|