<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[council] Additional information on single-character names
- To: "council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: [council] Additional information on single-character names
- From: Patrick Jones <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 21:40:09 -0700
- Accept-language: en-US
- Acceptlanguage: en-US
- In-reply-to: <C463784E.117DD%patrick.jones@icann.org>
- List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Thread-index: Aci8Y7mtdtvqCiH2Q9iQelOqjyF+wwAAsZOdACmNpCABDO/WfwABZ0Wk
- Thread-topic: Additional information on single-character names
Dear Council members,
Because of the overlap between the Council call and the Board call, this email
is intended to provide additional information from ICANN staff in advance of
the discussion on 29 May regarding single-character names at the second-level.
* Contractual provisions in ICANN's registry agreements govern how we act.
In addition, new Registry Services are governed by the GNSO Policy, which was
put into the contractual provisions of the registry agreements.
* ICANN cannot unilaterally change the registry agreements and the Schedule
of Reserved Names. There is no Policy which states that registries must release
single-character names at the second-level.
* A registry can be released from its obligations related to its Schedule of
Reserved Names on ICANN's approval pursuant to the specific contractual
provisions in the registry agreements. We are going through staff work to
determine the appropriate mechanism for release - this work includes the
development of a paper on allocation methods and uses of funds from allocation
of single-character names, and because this affects all registries, the
development of a process for release of single-letter names.
* The Reserved Names Working Group (RN WG) developed policy recommendations
on single-character names at the second-level for new gTLDs, and for existing
gTLDs, stating that release should be "contingent upon the use of appropriate
allocation frameworks. More work may be needed."
* As the Council is aware, these recommendations are not consensus policy
because they do not follow the consensus policy process. Therefore, the RN WG
recommendations and subsequent staff work does not raise new duties or
obligations for registries.
* A one-size-fits-all method may not work for all registries.
* Based on the direction of the Council, the public comment period and
synthesis document, ICANN staff will publish a paper regarding a proposed
allocation method and distribution of funds model for community consideration.
I will be available on Sunday 21 June during the GNSO Working Session in Paris
to answer questions on this topic.
Regards,
Patrick
--
Patrick L. Jones
Registry Liaison Manager &
Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names & Numbers
4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
Marina del Rey, CA 90292
Tel: +1 310 301 3861
Fax: +1 310 823 8649
patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|