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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

It feels like that if the GNSO is to develop any specifics around the 
allocation of single character 2LD it would probably be more appropriate for it 
to be a set of criteria or a framework rather than "an allocation method".  It 
seems unnecessary and perhaps inappropriate to dictate "an" allocation method 
to all gTLDs (given these are 2nd level domains).
Edmon



> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
> Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 10:07 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; Avri Doria; Marilyn Cade
> Cc: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> 
> I think GNSO is perfectly capable of recommending allocation methods.
> 
> Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sr. Legal Director
> Yahoo! Inc.
> 
> This email may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege.
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From:         Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx]
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 05:12 PM Pacific Standard Time
> To:   Avri Doria; Marilyn Cade
> Cc:   GNSO RN WG
> Subject:      RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> 
> What if we simply said, "This release should be contingent upon the
> development of an appropriate allocation method", deleting "by the
> GNSO"?
> 
> Chuck Gomes
> 
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> > Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 4:56 PM
> > To: Marilyn Cade
> > Cc: 'GNSO RN WG'
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> >
> > 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.
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >>
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> 
>