I agree with Adam-san. --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: > 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: > >