RE: [registrars] John Klensin's view on Single-letter second level domains

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>The purpose of the&nbsp;WG is stated as:</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
"...to perform an initial examination of the role and treatment of
reserved domain names at the first and second level, with the goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or Council."<BR></div>
<div>
If it were only to consider technical issues then we don't need a WG for
that, that would be a task for the SSAC I believe.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
I think Ross' question is a perfectly valid one for the WG to consider
given its purpose. And I think what Jon points out about funding and budgetary relief might be one answer to that question, and certainly something for the WG to discuss.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><BR>Tim </div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>
Subject: RE: [registrars] John Klensin's view on &nbsp;Single-letter
second<BR>level domains<BR>From: "Nevett, Jonathon" &lt;jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, January 22, 2007 9:27 am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "Registrars Constituency"<BR>&lt;registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>
I support the establishment of a Working Group on this issue.
&nbsp;These<BR>
names are an untapped resource that should be explored. &nbsp;The WG
should<BR>
examine and understand whether releasing them would create any
serious<BR>
technical concerns. &nbsp;If not, it may be a vehicle for ICANN to
achieve<BR>
the alternative sources of funding that it has discussed in the past
few<BR>
approved budgets, and could provide registrars and consumers
with<BR>important budgetary relief. &nbsp;<BR><BR>Jon<BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx<BR>[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz<BR>Sent: Monday, January 22, 2007 9:51 AM<BR>To: Registrars Constituency<BR>
Subject: RE: [registrars] John Klensin's view on Single-letter
second<BR>level domains<BR><BR>
I don't disagree Ross. But a WG is forming, and any debate of this
issue<BR>
shouldn't get side tracked with irrelevant concerns, like those
of<BR>John's. I think you raise a more valid question that the WG perhaps<BR>should answer at the outset. In any event, the RC should be represented<BR>on this WG.<BR><BR><BR>Tim <BR><BR><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>
Subject: Re: [registrars] John Klensin's view on &nbsp;Single-letter
second<BR>level domains<BR>From: Ross Rader &lt;ross@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, January 22, 2007 8:33 am<BR>To: Tim Ruiz &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: Bruce Tonkin &lt;Bruce.Tonkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, &nbsp;Registrars<BR>Constituency &lt;registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Tim Ruiz wrote:<BR>
&gt; Not advocating anything one way or another, but I don't buy
John's<BR>concern below:<BR><BR>
>From my perspective, I'm less concerned with which set of answers is
<BR>
more correct than the other's, rather - I'm more interested in learning
<BR>
why the entire Internet community should embroil itself in a debate
over<BR><BR>
which 26 companies will acquire rights to a single letter .com
name.<BR><BR>
It seems such a waste of energy to me that we're going down this road
at<BR><BR>
a time when other higher priority issues such as IDNs are just starting
<BR>
to get traction after having languished for so many years. I mean,
we've<BR><BR>
launched quite a few TLDs over the last few years - I haven't heard of
<BR>any great outcry about the default reserved names rules.<BR><BR>-ross </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>