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

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

We will discuss it again on Monday.

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 
> marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 9:57 AM
> To: Avri Doria; owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx; Liz Williams
> Cc: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] RN-WG Questions: Report detail - 
> single character tld
> 
> I am objecting to the change in the recommendations, and 
> assume that the objections raised will be taken into account 
> as the WG proceeds. I am ties up today but will repost 
> concerns abt assuming there are no concerns at the top level. 
> Irregardless of second level issues. 
> 
> I otherwise support avri's conceptual articulation of 'public 
> good' and perhaps, Avri, you, Mawaki, and i can wk on that 
> further off list, to fine tune a statement. 
> 
> Sorry to have missed the rest of the discourse. 
> Regards,
> Marilyn Cade
>   
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
> Date: Fri, 9 Mar 2007 06:54:23
> To:Liz Williams <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx> Cc:GNSO RN WG 
> <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
> 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.
> 
> 
>