Single Letter Reserved Names

[Adam Peake]

I don't understand why this is a problem (except 
for the general trend of not being able to find 
NCUC members for the many working groups).  Just 
a sub-group report. Is the report bad?

NCUC generally seems to like the release of 
names, at whatever level. If no technical reasons 
not to release 
(<http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg03164.html>?), 
then our interest is perhaps in how the names are 
released.  We should support the general 
principle of more names.

Aftermarket's booming again.  Suggest auction 
with a reserve of USD 50 Million with money 
generated added to a global trust for ICT 
development, with a focus on Internet Governance 
and ICT aspects of millennium development goals 
(i.e. the IGF and GAID).

Start with T O Y ?

Adam



>Danny,
>
>Thanks for alerting me on this. I must say, though, that I can't
>afford to be concerned every time NCUC lack volunteers to participate
>in a WG or sub-group (I would've been multi-sick and lost half of my
>weight by now.) Not even when the result is that a sub-group is
>filled of BC members that have "aggressively promoted" a specific
>outcome. When the report will be released, NCUC can make their view
>known, if any. Better yet, they could massively volunteer to be part
>of the WGs and Sub-groups in order to participate in shaping the
>outcome. (I know you, Danny, have given your share of time and energy
>in those WGs.)
>
>Further, when the report of the whole WG comes out at the council
>level, NCUC have three reps there. If we all attend the Council
>conference calls, no matter our geographical locations (that are not
>so much more distributed than those of the other constituencies'
>reps,) then we could make the NCUC's voice heard (note: proxies are
>no longer accepted for those not present on the calls.) But I'd
>advise that we be concerned with getting our language in at the
>drafting phase of the recommendations. The late draftings are painful
>for everyone, and at the end we are reduced to voting against, but
>then more often on the minority side than on the majority one.
>
>And if you really want to know my mind while I'm at it, I'm more
>concerned that BC (and any other constituency, for that matter,) make
>sure they open up to businesses (or relevant constituents) from East
>Europ, Asia and Africa when these knock at the door. And if those
>diverse new comers want to step in and speak for themselves and their
>interests, great! Conversely, if they just want to sit in and listen
>and watch the others populate the WGs, etc. and shape the decisions,
>it's also fine by me; maybe they will be learning something out of
>it.
>
>Last, which should have been first, please join me to welcome
>Victoria McEvedy to our world, and wish her a lot of perseverance.
>Victoria, please feel free to ask any question, privately (to any one
>of us) or on this list as you see fit, about the WG processes that I
>know you've already joined or the GNSO constituencies, including this
>one.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Mawaki
>
>
>--- Danny Younger <dannyyounger at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>  Mawaki,
>>
>>  I have noted that the Sub Group on Single and Dual
>>  Character Domains within the Reserved Names Working
>>  Group has released a recommendation that
>>  single-letters at the second level should be released.
>>
>>  No matter what your view on this issue, you should be
>>  concerned about the composition of this Sub Group:
>>
>>  Neil Blair
>>  Mike Rodenbaugh
>>  Alistair Dixon
>>  Marilyn Cade
>>
>>  All of these members hail from the Business
>>  Constituency (that has aggressively promoted the
>>  release of single-letters).
>>
>>  I would suggest monitoring the output of this group
>>  very closely.
>>
>>  Best regards,
>>  Danny
>>
>>
>> 
>>
>____________________________________________________________________________________
>>  8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time
>>  with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut.
>>  http://tools.search.yahoo.com/shortcuts/#news
>>