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

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

As I shared in the call on Thursday, establishing or even recommending
'an allocation method' for any names is not in the statement of work for
the RN-WG.  I believe the most we could do is to recommend that a group
should be formed to consider 'an allocation method'.

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: Edmon Chung [mailto:edmonchung@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of 
> Edmon Chung
> Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 10:12 PM
> To: 'Mike Rodenbaugh'; Gomes, Chuck; 'Avri Doria'; 'Marilyn Cade'
> Cc: 'GNSO RN WG'
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> 
> 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.
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>