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

[Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>]

Colleagues

Just some clarity around the existing draft recommendations on  
allocation methods (Term of Reference 3) which the GNSO Committee on  
new TLDs has derived through the course of its work since December  
2005.  Note that this quotation takes not take account of the updated  
language from the Los Angeles meetings - that is being completed at  
the moment for release shortly.
The Committee has been working on developing policies for allocation  
methods and, given that the Reserved Names Working Group, is a subset  
of the new TLDs Committee one would expect that the work would be  
consistent.
"Term of Reference Three:  Allocation Methods
i)     Applications will be assessed in rounds
ii)    Applications for strings will be published after the closing date
iii)   If there is contention for strings
(1)  Applicants may resolve contention between themselves within a  
pre-established timeframe
(2)  If there is no mutual agreement, a process will be put in place  
to enable efficient resolution of contention
(3)  The ICANN Board may be used to make a final decision, using  
advice from staff and expert panels"
GNSO Committee members will recall the details discussion on  
allocation methods that took place at the Brussels and Amsterdam  
meetings.  For example, see the thread here http://forum.icann.org/ 
lists/gtld-council/msg00198.html.  Earlier discussions about a range  
of allocation methods can be found on the gTLDs Committee's mailing  
list archive -- Email from Bruce Tonkin:  http://forum.icann.org/ 
lists/gtld-council/msg00058.html.
Note that the discussion has moved substantially but new members of  
the RN and new members of the Committee may find it useful to go back  
through some earlier work.
Of course, any questions, please let me know.

Liz

.....................................................

Liz Williams
Senior Policy Counselor
ICANN - Brussels
+32 2 234 7874 tel
+32 2 234 7848 fax
+32 497 07 4243 mob




On 08 Mar 2007, at 22:41, 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.