Single Letter Reserved Names

[Milton Mueller]

Thanks for your analysis, Danny. 
I have one observation: 
1) the proliferation of these small subgroups is a problem that needs to be addressed. No one except full time lobbyists can keep up with them all, and their composition seems unbalanced. 

I have three questions:
2) Does anyone have the right to form one of these subgroups? e.g., could Robin decide to create the "consistency of ICANN's TLD process with Article 19 Subgroup"?
3) Is the single-letter TLD auction solely for .com or are we talking about any registry? 
4) regarding ALT1, why is selling a second-level domain name a "new service?" what makes it different from selling any other domain name? 


>>> Danny Younger <dannyyounger at YAHOO.COM> 3/7/2007 6:00 PM >>>
The allocation recommendations from the Reserved Names
Subgroup (otherwise known as the Business
Constituency) have been released:

3.4	Single letters and numbers  * second level:  We
recommend that single letters and numbers be released
at the second level in future TLDs, and that those
currently reserved in existing TLDs should be
released.  

Methods for allocating released names were discussed
by the Sub-group.  Three alternative recommendations
are presented: 

[ALT1]:  A registry could propose release of single
letter or number strings through the process for new
registry services, which process involves analysis of
any technical or security concerns and provides
opportunity for public input.  This approach could
also address concerns raised about allocation of
names, reduction of registrar contributions to the
ICANN budget, and capacity building.

[ALT2]:  Currently reserved names may be released
through a framework to be developed, which treats the
release and allocation of single letters in the non
sponsored gTLDs uniformly by allocating them via
auction to parties with demonstrated rights; allocates
funds to benefit ICANN stakeholder interests and
reduce dependency on Registry/Registrar contributions;
provides funds to assist in supporting
capacity-building for applications from developing
countries in some kind of balanced and transparent
manner; and/or provides funds for a Security Institute
focused on root servers, DNSSEC, etc.

[ALT3]: 'Drop and Grab' model putting the names into
the secondary market for auction/sale.  Nobody in the
sub-group supports this ALT.

My comments:  

Option #1 is a cash cow for VeriSign as the new
registry services process would be invoked -- that
would allow for all auction revenues to make their way
directly into VeriSign's pocket.

Option #2 accords these single-letter second-level
names only to those with "demonstrated rights" (read
this as trademark rights as opposed to general
registrant rights) through an auction process.  Money
would go to ICANN

Option #3 is a sop put into the mix to focus attention
solely upon options 1 & 2

Clearly there are many other allocation methods and
options possible, and such domain names need not be
subject to the trademark-uber-alles approach;  the
NCUC should float some alternatives.


 
____________________________________________________________________________________
TV dinner still cooling? 
Check out "Tonight's Picks" on Yahoo! TV.
http://tv.yahoo.com/