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: