RE: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail - single character tld

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Avri's statement seems to be an accurate reflection of what we discussed
yesterday but it is important to recognize that we haven't finalized
this one yet.

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: Friday, March 09, 2007 6:54 AM
> To: Liz Williams
> Cc: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail - 
> single character tld
> 
> 
> On 9 mar 2007, at 06.22, Liz Williams wrote:
> 
> > Recommendation 2 Section 1d. p4  "We recommend that single 
> letter or 
> > number TLDs be allowed in future rounds, via the process to 
> be agreed 
> > via PDP05".  Just confirming the group's recommendation 
> means that the 
> > treatment of applications for single letter and single number TLD 
> > strings will be treated in exactly the same way as any 
> other new TLD 
> > application AND that any "string contention and allocation methods" 
> > would be the same.
> 
> I am not sure what part of the document you are referring to, 
> but in regard to recommendations for single character at the 
> top level (and I would make the same reservation for both 
> ascii and idn)
> 
> You are right to point this out.  While the discussion came 
> up in regard to 2nd level single letter and we got into the 
> technical issues of single letter allocations, I would also 
> want to recommend that these, if technically feasible, be 
> treated as rare resources and hence subject to a special 
> allocation method that provided public benefit.
> 
> My personal view on the definition of 'public benefit', which 
> i don't expect to be included in the report, is that proceeds 
> from these special allocation methods above ICANN processing 
> expenses be applied to a fund that aided applicants whose 
> economic environment did not permit them to afford the fees 
> necessary to support a California based global process.
> 
> thanks
> 
> a.
> 
>