ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

dotMobi's constituency opposes .tel proposed agreement

  • To: <tel-tld-agreement@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: dotMobi's constituency opposes .tel proposed agreement
  • From: "nedwards" <nedwards@xxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 29 Apr 2006 10:11:17 -0400

The sponsoring constituency of mobile and telecommunications companies
behind mTLD Top Level Domain, LLC (dotMobi) opposes the approval of the
.tel proposed agreement.  The following companies are involved in
dotMobi: Nokia, Samsung, Vodafone, Microsoft, Google, Telefonica,
Telecom Italia, Orascom, GSM Association, T-Mobile, Syniverse, 3
Hutchinson, and Ericsson.   


We oppose the approval of the .tel agreement on the following grounds:


1.      Sponsorship


No sponsoring associations or companies from the telecommunications
industry have publicly sponsored .tel.  The whole purpose of the
sponsored top level domain is to have a sponsor representing a
significant population from the community in which it serves.  No other
sponsored top level domain has been approved without a sponsor.  Why has
.tel been allowed without significant sponsoring community?  


2.      Price and Fair Competition


.tel will have a proposed price of $0.15.  This price is far below what
other registry operators pay to ICANN.  Why has ICANN given .tel such an
unfair competitive advantage over other registry operators?  dotMobi,
for example, pays $0.75 per name to ICANN and offers similar services to


.tel and dotMobi provide many similar and future services.  dotMobi
clearly articulated our planned services many years ago in our
application to ICANN.  Two competing sponsored top level domains are
being introduced by ICANN.  Yet, one is clearly price advantaged over
the other.  


Why has .tel been favored over dotMobi in such a public way?


3.      Transparency


dotMobi went through incredible public scrutiny and consensus building
in our application process.  We put together many consumer interest
safeguards such as our Membership Advisory Group and our Policy Advisory
Board to ensure that the interests of the mobile community would always
be represented.  We had to give specific details on how the process
would work to secure the dotMobi agreement.  .tel's application has
vague references to what they may do, but they are not transparent in
their application or proposed agreement.  Why has the whole process for
the approval of .tel not been more transparent to the community?


dotMobi and constituency behind dotMobi opposes the approval of the .tel
agreement at this time.  We believe that more time and review need to be
taken around the proposed .tel agreement.   




Neil Edwards

CEO, dotMobi

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy