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: