Answering Mr. Tobias

["Tim Griswold" <tgriswold@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Dear Sir,

Thank you for taking the time to read our application and for posting your
comments.

We would like to bring to your attention the following answers:

Firstly, you stated that it is a mistake to use TLDs to designate a
particular device type. We agree with your statement. However, Telnic's .tel
is not based on device type but rather on a dedicated service. As defined on
the front page of our application, this dedicated service is: any form of
intercommunications activity (voice or combined voice/data) between
individuals and/or businesses, which is dependent, in part or whole, on the
Internet as the means of transport. Thus, Telnic's .tel will serve voice or
combined voice/data services regardless of device types (provided that they
are Internet-enabled) or network access technologies. 

Secondly, you stated that Internet-enabled telephones are becoming
increasingly capable of accessing the same Internet sites as PCs. We agree
with your statement. Indeed, in the near future, repurposing technologies or
device-aware websites will adjust the website size/content accordingly.
However, you have overlooked two important issues: 

(1)     Telnic's .tel main focus is on communication services between
individuals and businesses. For example, Hertz could register its .tel
domain name to enable dedicated communications solutions (i.e. call centers)
to respond to its customers' needs. Please launch our demo at:
www.telnic.com <http://www.telnic.com/> .

(2)     Telnic's .tel is also about communication services between
individuals, who typically do not have dedicated websites like businesses.
Even though certain network operators, such as SFR in France, are offering
their subscribers the ability to create their own mini-websites, the
complexity of the URLs (http://perso.sfr.fr/customer) makes it extremely
difficult for users outside of the network to access the site. Telnic's .tel
will allow the subscriber, Adam Smith, to register adamsmith.tel and develop
a mini-website of his own or point his .tel domain to any network operator's
service such as SFR's. Thus, the .tel answers the need for simplicity,
brand-extension and complete portability of the subscriber's contact
information. 

Thirdly, you stated that is makes more sense to use a bottom level hostname.
While it is technically possible, this approach leaves open the possibility
of creating many potential competing bottom level hostnames, such as:
contact.hertz.com, tel.hertz.com, wap.hertz.com, mobile.hertz.com,
mob.hertz.com, phone.hertz.com, or info.hertz.com. This environment would
not serve the consumers as they would be required to learn each content
provider's unique addressing structure. To avoid this confusion, a single
logical structure can only be provided by a new and unifying ICANN
sanctioned sTLD.

Fourthly, you have stated that the .mobi and .tel proposals are essentially
the same. We beg to differ as there are substantial differences in our
approaches. However, in the interest of good business practice, we believe
it would be inappropriate for us to comment on the .mobi application within
this public forum without ICANN inviting us to do so.

Kind Regards,

Telnic Management