RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I am not sure that is quite the clarification that I'd like to see. I am not
sure that the expertise is resident in the GNSO to develop allocation
methods; it is certainly possible to generate ideas about approaches, thus I
do not recommend that the allocation method should be developed by the GNSO
Council. For example, perhaps the better clarification may be that the GNSO
would recommend to the Board that an allocation method should be developed. 

Marilyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:01 PM
To: GNSO RN WG
Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal


On 8 mar 2007, at 14.43, Avri Doria wrote:

>
>
>> 3.3  Single letters and numbers  - second level:  We recommend that  
>> single letters and numbers be released at the second level in  
>> future TLDs, and that those currently reserved in existing TLDs  
>> should be released.
>
>> Methods for allocating released names were discussed by the Sub- 
>> group.  Three alternative recommendations are presented:
>
>>
>
> Suggested:
>
> Single letters and numbers  - second level:  We recommend that  
> single ascii letters and numbers be released at the second level in  
> future TLDs, and that those currently reserved in existing TLDs  
> should be released pending the development of an appropriate  
> allocation method by the GNSO council.

I reread it and I think it parses incorrectly and leaves an ambiguity  
such the in new TLDs they are just released, while existing TLDs one  
needs new allocation methods.

recommended re-write:

We recommend that single ascii letters and numbers be released at the  
second level in future TLDs, and that those currently reserved in  
existing TLDs should be released.  This release should be contingent  
upon the development of an appropriate allocation method by the GNSO  
council.

>
> Several methods for such allocation were discussed by the sub- 
> group.    These are available for review by any future group with  
> the mandate to discuss and recommend allocation methods for 2nd  
> level single character names.
>
>
>
>