ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    sTLDs hoping to enter legacy root Pussy.cat, yes; Pussy.xxx, Maybe. No Pussy.tel
    posted by michael on Saturday April 02 2005, @08:09AM

    Mike Sorros writes "Yesterday ICANN published the minutes for three of four 2005 board meetings: http://www.icann.org/minutes/. Again, just a day before the Argentina meeting in Mar del Plate starts. Great! Less criticism, more time for football...

    But let's get back to the sTLD applications:"




    "For .xxx: "There was extensive board discussion regarding the application in particular focused around the issue of whether a sponsored community criteria of the RFP was appropriately met. Various Board Members suggested that it might be useful for the applicants to give a presentation to the board on these issues at a later board meeting and asked staff to discuss this with the applicants."

    Interesting... Shouldn't this been answered in the application itself? Why a presentation? If the application misses to show evidence of an existing and supporting community should the board not simply terminate the application?

    In case of Mr. Jeff Pulver's ".tel" application? Why didn't the board ask Mr. Pulver the hold a VON conference at ICANN's headquarters to proof the existence of a community who supports his application?

    What I really don't understand is why nobody says "NO" to the applicants which have failed the necessary criteria or when there is more opposition about the proposal than support? Has any applicant ever heard a "NO"? It seems to me as the ICANN board still is unable to make a clear decision. A "maybe later" is not something an applicant wants to hear.

    And Telnic's ".tel"? What about there community? Maybe: "People interested in publishing their address data in DNS via domain associated NAPTR records"? I don't understand why Telnic's application will be reviewed by the ICANN board and Pulver's won't...

    What about the ITU. Let's forget yesterday's joke about the ICANN/ITU merger and be serious.

    If the UPU (Univeral Postal Union), which has it's domain www.upu.int and is as the ITU part of the United Nations, will become granted ".post" doesn't it make sense to grant ".tel" to the ITU which is responsible for TELecommunications?

    Why should ".tel" be given away to Telnic? Did you know that they originally went for ".mobile"? When the mTLD consortium went public last year, they changed their whole website to ".tel"...

    Why not granting Telnic, if there is enough evidence of a community, ".adr" or another string. They could live with that?

    But what if WSIS will come to an agreement that the ITU should get granted ".tel" for NGN related addressing...

    If I were the ICANN board, I would be cautious and would not grant ".tel" to Telnic or to Pulver."

     
      ICANNWatch Login  
    Nickname:

    Password:

    [ Don't have an account yet? Please create one. It's not required, but as a registered user you can customize the site, post comments with your name, and accumulate reputation points ("karma") that will make your comments more visible. ]

     
      Related Links  
    · ITU
    · ICANN
    · Mike Sorros
    · http://www.icann.org/minutes/
    · More sTLDs hoping to enter legacy root stories
    · Also by michael
     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    Pussy.cat, yes; Pussy.xxx, Maybe. No Pussy.tel | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 1 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • 1 reply beneath your current threshold.

  • Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com