 Pussy.cat, yes; Pussy.xxx, Maybe. No Pussy.tel
posted by michael on Saturday April 02 2005, @07:09AM
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."
|
|
|
|
< Tommy Registrar and the Gatecrashers
| We Never Seem to Learn, Do We? >
|
|
| |
[ 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. ]
|
|
| | |
|
