[ga-full] Re: [ga] Re: Single Letter Domains

["Michael F. McNulty" <mcnulty@azstarnet.com>]

An auction would truly help everyone to appreciate the value and
scarcity of the domain space, at least as currently configured.
Michael McNulty

------------------------------------------------------------------

Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

> Dear mr. Kaufman:
>
> These are my particular responses to the issues you raise, and have no
> particular weight; I have asked you before to join the GA list if you want
> to participate in a discussion about them.
>
> You raise two interesting points in your message:
>
> 1) Should single letter domains be delegated under .com, .net and .org?
> 2) If they should be delegated, who should be the recipient of the delegation?
>
> The first question then leads to the third question:
>
> 3) Who decides what domains to delegate under a top level domain?
>
> We have multiple conflicting precedents on this question:
>
> - The NSI decision not to delegate domain names containing the "network seven"
>    was dropped recently, after a period where NSI as a registry permitted it,
>    even while NSI the registrar did not.
>
> - The attempt to sell .com names ending in a dash was stopped after an ICANN
>    decision was made that such names were not within the specifications
>
> On the question of single letter domains, there are precedents on this in
> other contexts; the .dk domain allows them, the .no domain does not, for
> instance. So clearly this has been decided in the past on a per-domain basis.
>
> There is as far as I know no precedent for requiring a registy to register
> a name at all. While the trend recently has been that many registries will
> be happy to sell any name you want to buy, many (like .se, .gov or .int)
> are operated under far more restrictive rules. Again, on a per domain basis.
> I thus have a problem seeing the precedent for forcing the sale of "k.com",
> given that the policy in place is not being unfairly applied - nobody can
> get it.
>
> All that said, I don't see at the moment any particular reason for
> escrowing those 26 domains in .com - your request for a change of policy
> may have merit, if we can figure out who has the responsibility to change
> that policy.
>
> On the question of who gets the domain, I am far less uncertain: If a
> policy change is decided, there must be a fair method of allocating the
> domains.
> "First-come-first-served" has served us well in the past, but in this
> instance, it is likely to be decided on sub-millisecond timing, given the
> number of people who will take an interest.
>
> A more explicit form of lottery will probably seem fairer in this
> particular case.
>
> My thoughts.
>
>                        Harald T. Alvestrand
>
> --
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
> Harald.Alvestrand@edb.maxware.no
>
> --
> This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
> Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
> ("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
> Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html

--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html