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

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

Liz,

I believe the only thing so far that may be inconsistent with the Dec05
PDP work is the possible (note I said possible) recommendation that the
allocation method for very valuable strings at the top level (e.g.,
single character) should be supplemented or partially replaced with an
additional or different allocation procedure.  If you see other areas of
inconsistency, please let me know.

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 Liz Williams
> Sent: Friday, March 09, 2007 4:38 AM
> To: Marilyn Cade
> Cc: 'Avri Doria'; 'GNSO RN WG'
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] 2nd level single character proposal
> 
> 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.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> 
>