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

[Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>]

hi,

Well perhaps there is a better way to say it and I am certainly opne  
to other wordings. As I see it, this WG feeds recommendation up the  
food chain to the new gTLD group and then they pass it on to the  
council. I think at that point the council needs to figure out what  
approach to take.  It would be a policy call in at least the first  
instance; i.e to accept that there be a new allocation method.  How  
council decided to proceed with it is rather remote from this WG  
process, though it does seem to fit into the council's policy mandate  
on developing policy for the introduction of TLDs.
a.



On 8 mar 2007, at 16.41, Marilyn Cade wrote:

> 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.