ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [gnso-dt-wg] domain tasting follow up

  • To: "Liz Gasster" <liz.gasster@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [gnso-dt-wg] domain tasting follow up
  • From: "Rosette, Kristina" <krosette@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 28 Mar 2008 14:13:40 -0400

IPC statement closes for comment at 3:30 EDT.  Barring any unforeseen
client emergencies, I hope to submit it by 5:00 PM EDT. Worst case
scenario is that it will be submitted before midnight EDT.

Yes, as to call.  

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Liz Gasster
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 2:04 PM
To: gnso-dt-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: [gnso-dt-wg] domain tasting follow up


Attached is the ALAC's updated constituency statement on domain tasting.
I note Chuck's earlier update that the registry constituency statement
will be forthcoming.  That's what I am aware of so far.  Could others
provide updates for the team?

Is there consensus for a call on Tuesday at usual time (1:00 Pacific
time)? Glen and I can set that up.

Thanks, Liz

-----Original Message-----
From: Alan Greenberg [mailto:alan.greenberg@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:44 AM
To: Olof Nordling; Liz Gasster
Subject: ALAC update regarding DT

Olof and/or Liz (not sure who is handling this),

Following is the update to the ALAC "Constituency" Statement on Domain


The At Large Advisory Committee has consulted with its constituent
bodies regarding the proposed GNSO Council motion on Domain Tasting.

Some constituents would have preferred to see a more aggressive
recommendation - specifically to eliminate the Add Grace Period
entirely. However, the ALAC recognizes that compared to some alternative
suggested ways of addressing domain tasting (such as using a 90%
threshold instead of 10%, a more modest "restocking fee", more studies,
or simply letting the domain name market evolve without intervention),
the proposed action is relatively aggressive.

Given that the proposed motion includes the requirement to monitor the
implementation and effectiveness of the proposed limitations on the AGP,
the ALAC unanimously supports the proposed motion.

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy