[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ga-full] Re: Single Letter Domains
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
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
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
"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
Harald T. Alvestrand
Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
This message was passed to you via the firstname.lastname@example.org list.
Send mail to email@example.com to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html