[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: Single Letter Domains
At 11:17 AM 5/27/00 -0700, Mike Roberts wrote:
Could someone please explain how the following domains have already been
registered - some as long ago as 1997 and long before ICANN existed?
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=q.com
JG (Q225-DOM), Athens, GA 30606, US
Record created on 30-Mar-1999
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=x.com
X.com Corporation (X880-DOM), Palo Alto, CA 94301, US
Record created on 20-Oct-1999
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=z.com
United Internet Artists, Inc (Z509-DOM), Burbank, CA 91504, US
Record created on 20-Apr-2000
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=i.net
Inet Corp. (I737-DOM), Roadtown, BRITISH VIRGIN ISLES
Record created on 10-Dec-1999
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=q.net
Q Networks, San Juan, PUERTO RICO
Record created on 10-Mar-2000
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/whois/whois?STRING=x.org
The Open Group (X57-DOM), Reading, Berks RG1 1AX, UNITED KINGDOM
Record created on 18-Jan-1997.
>Mr. Kaufman -
>
>I am sure that I am not the only person on this address list that stands
>in awe of your entrepreneurial instincts. Unfortunately, you have lots of
>company out there. That's why there is an ICANN policy process through
>which the community can arrive at equitable approaches to the use of
>domain names.
>
>With regard to various comments about legal matters in your emails, this
>list is not a useful place to air your opinions. If your counsel has
>reason to believe that you have a particular legal right to any domain
>name, then he or she should send a properly supported brief to ICANN's
>General Counsel, Louis Touton, who will take it under advisement.
>
>- Mike Roberts
>
>At 10:19 -0700 5/27/00, John Kaufman wrote:
>>Dear Messrs Roberts and Alvestrand, DNSO Members of the ICANN Board, and
>>the ICANN Board:
>>
>>I will disregard the indiscreet email sent by Mr. Jeff Williams to this list.
>>
>>I appreciate your response to my query. Mr. Alvestrand, your fairness in
>>proposing a lottery for the purpose of disposing the 78 single-letter
>>domains (.com, .net, .org) is kindly noted.
>>
>>With not all matters of discussion or action being always equal or fair,
>>a lottery would not work for the purpose of serving my personal agenda,
>>which is to acquire the "k.com" domain. I understand that the prohibition
>>of the sale of these domains was grandfathered into ICANN as a result of
>>certain actions taken by Mr. Jon Postel and the IANA. But, I also
>>understand that no legal standing whatsoever exists that prevents the
>>immediate sale of single-letter domains, and that the only reason said
>>domains are being withheld is that Mr. Postel simply wanted it that way.
>>
>>I admit to not being particularly concerned about the way ICANN by-laws
>>are written or enforced. However, I am concerned about the rule of law
>>which, when applied in this case, could hold ICANN and its supporting
>>organization(s) in violation of exclusionary practices, namely, the
>>withholding of certain property (such as single-letter domains) when
>>other like (similar) property (such as two-letter domains) are not being
>>withheld.
>>
>>Therefore, I respectfully submit to DNSO and ICANN that, first, the
>>"k.com" domain be sold and released to the undersigned without delay, and
>>that single-letter domains be opened for sale to the general public. If
>>it is decided that this action can or will not be taken, kindly advise me
>>of the specific reason so public debate and legal review can begin.
>>
>>Respectfully submitted,
>>
>>John C. Kaufman
>>President
>>Kaufman Communications
>>San Francisco, CA
>>May 27, 2000
>>
>>--------------------------------------------
>>
>>Dear Mr Kaufman,
>>
>>Let me clarify the situation with regard to single letter domains for
>>you. Some years ago, Jon Postel in his capacity as IANA reserved these
>>domains because in his judgment doing so would contribute to successful
>>operation of the domain name system for all users. Like other
>>pre-existing IANA policies, this policy is being continued under ICANN
>>management until such time as a policy proceeding conducted under our
>>organizational structure and Bylaws comes to the conclusion that these
>>domains should be treated in some other manner.
>>They are not reserved for ICANN's use, they are reserved from any use at
>>this time.
>>If you believe that there is sufficient reason to change the policy
>>treatment of these domains, then the appropriate place for you to begin
>>is with ICANN's Domain Name Support Organization, information about which
>>may be found at www.dnso.org.
>>Thank you for your interest in our work.
>>- Mike
>>Michael M. Roberts
>>
>>
>>--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>At 08:13 AM 5/27/2000 +0200, 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
>>
>>------------------------------
>>Dear Mr. Alvestrand and the DNSO Members of the ICANN Board:
>> > >
>> > >I have been directed to you by Mr. Michael Roberts, CEO of ICANN,
>> > >regarding a change in the policy treatment of single-letter domains
>> (e.g.,
>> > >the sale of said domains to the general public).
>> > >
>> > >After reviewing the charters, by-laws and other documents of both ICANN
>> > >and IANA, I see no precedent that would stand a legal test that would
>> deny
>> > >the sale of single-letter domains to the general public. Nor do I see a
>> > >precedent that would stand a legal test that would disallow the sale of
>> > >single-letter domains to the public. If I have missed such a precedent,
>> > >please so advise.
>> > >
>> > >Therefore, I would like to propose that the Names Council of the DNSO, as
>> > >a supporting organization of ICANN with respect to policy issues related
>> > >to the Domain Name System, propose to ICANN that the pre-existing IANA
>> > >policy barring the sale of single-letter domains now being continued
>> under
>> > >ICANN management be struck down and, at the same time, that the domain
>> > >"k.com" be the first such domain to be sold under the new policy to the
>> > >undersigned.
>> > >
>> > >Please be advised that, in the interest of the general public, I may
>> issue
>> > >a press statement next week to the effect that a change in this
>> policy has
>> > >been requested.
>> > >
>> > >Thank you very much.
>> > >
>> > >John C. Kaufman
>> > >President
>> > >Kaufman Communications
>> > >San Francisco, CA
Best Regards,
Simon Higgs
--
It's a feature not a bug...
--
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