ICANN Opens Comment Forum on .COOP and .MOBI...

[WhoNet]

ICANN Opens Comment Forum on .COOP and .MOBI
Proposed Contract Changes to Allocate Single-Character Names

28 July 2008

ICANN is today opening a public comment forum on proposed amendments to Appendix 6 of the DotCoop and DotMobi Sponsored TLD Agreements.

On 29 May 2008, ICANN posted for public information two requests submitted by the DotCoop and DotMobi sTLDs through the Registry Services Evaluation Process. Both registries proposed allocation of single-character second-level domain names.

As provided for by existing consensus policy (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/rsep.html), ICANN has undertaken a preliminary determination to determine whether the proposals might raise significant security or stability, or competition issues. ICANN's determination is that the proposals submitted by DotCoop and DotMobi do not raise such issues in their respective sTLDs.

[Note that, from 13 June to 13 July 2008, ICANN conducted a public comment forum on a proposed single-character second-level domain names allocation framework (http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/proposed-scsld-allocation-framework-13jun08.htm), which supported the allocation single-character second-level domain names in existing registries and reviewed various allocation methods.]

Both proposals require amendments to respective registry agreements. Therefore, a copy of the proposed DotCoop amendment is available here [PDF, 28K], and a copy of the proposed DotMOBI amendment is available here [PDF, 28K]. Both amendments provide for changes to Appendix 6, Schedule of Reserved Names. Comments on the proposed amendments submitted to coop-mobi-amendments at icann.org will be considered until 22 August 2008 23:59 UTC. Comments may be viewed at http://forum.icann.org/lists/coop-mobi-amendments/.

All documentation related to the DotCoop proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008005, while all documentation related to the DotMobi proposal is available at http://www.icann.org/en/registries/rsep/#2008006.

http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-28jul08-en.htm

 

[Jeff]

mTLD has not demonstrated a necessary level of maturity, openness, or professional business standards ... from abandoning previous RFP's and subsequently taking down the corresponding text from its site, to not enforcing the contractual development mandates and coding compliance standards of previously auctioned domains, and still sitting on 1,000's upon 1,000's of undeveloped and languishing "reserved" domains, as well as not addressing and documenting to what extent those auction proceeds are specifically designated for the promotion of the extension itself and the degree to which its supposed "backers" are actually backing the extension, IMHO. :gl:

For these reasons (among a myriad of others), and due to the lengthy list of very disturbing, and as yet UNANSWERED, questions and concerns raised by the membership - over a TWO YEAR PERIOD - that have been highlighted in these various pages, I do not believe (and don't feel confident they they will ever ultimately "allocate" as desired!) that mTLD should be entrusted or permitted to "allocate" single-character domain names ... which, if judged by recent history, will simply become yet another source of pure profit GREED MONEY for this Registry, versus the desired affect of the actual building (via the promised and once important RFP process!) and promoting (of actual developed, stand-alone compelling websites for use by those that are "on the go"!!) the critical "ecosystem", in my view. :imho:

Thank you for understanding.
-Jeff

 

[namewaiter]

and due to the lengthy list of very disturbing, and as yet UNANSWERED, questions and concerns raised by the membership

ummm ... you really should have stated 'questions and concerns constantly, provokingly and irritatingly raised by me'

 

[Jeff]

ummm ... you really should have stated 'questions and concerns constantly, provokingly and irritatingly raised by me'

^ Untrue ... please check the volumes of threads and the historical record, friend! :gl: :yell:

I do, however, realize that these unanswered questions and concerns may seem "threatening" or "irritating" to those with an one-sided and self-serving .MOBI Agenda™, IMHO.
Thanks for the assist.
-Jeff

 

[mjnels]

mTLD has not demonstrated a necessary level of maturity, openness, or professional business standards ... from abandoning previous RFP's and subsequently taking down the corresponding text from its site, to not enforcing the contractual development mandates and coding compliance standards of previously auctioned domains, and still sitting on 1,000's upon 1,000's of undeveloped and languishing "reserved" domains, as well as not addressing and documenting to what extent those auction proceeds are specifically designated for the promotion of the extension itself and the degree to which its supposed "backers" are actually backing the extension, IMHO. :gl:

For these reasons (among a myriad of others), and due to the lengthy list of very disturbing, and as yet UNANSWERED, questions and concerns raised by the membership - over a TWO YEAR PERIOD - that have been highlighted in these various pages, I do not believe (and don't feel confident they they will ever ultimately "allocate" as desired!) that mTLD should be entrusted or permitted to "allocate" single-character domain names ... which, if judged by recent history, will simply become yet another source of pure profit GREED MONEY for this Registry, versus the desired affect of the actual building (via the promised and once important RFP process!) and promoting (of actual developed, stand-alone compelling websites for use by those that are "on the go"!!) the critical "ecosystem", in my view. :imho:

Thank you for understanding.
-Jeff

do you have shortcut keys programmed on your keyboard for these posts?

some kind of template involved?

 

[hawkeye]

do you have shortcut keys programmed on your keyboard for these posts?

some kind of template involved?

I think he has them all prelaid out, and he just copies and pastes them. They all say the same thing over and over. Two years striaight of the exact same thing. And if you look thru all threads, it's just a 'chorus of one' that is still demanding answers from people who can't answer them. Weird. And even if they were answered, he still won't support it, so why does he keep asking them? No one else is.


Wait...for it....


Thanks for understanding.

 

[Jeff]

^ Standard distraction and subterfuge aside ... and now getting back on topic ... if you believe that mTLD should be granted an proposed allocation of single-character domain names, please specify your thoughts, comments, and parameters, etc. - Pro or Con - here in this space! :gl: :imho:
I maintain that mTLD has not demonstrated a necessary level of maturity, openess, or professional business standards to move forward with such a proposal, IMHO. Furthermore, I believe it will only serve to create even more GREED MONEY for mTLD ... at the expense of the aforementioned critical developed "ecosystem"! :imho:

Thank you for staying on topic and for your comments, folks! :talk:
-Jeff

 

[hawkeye]

^ Standard distraction and subterfuge aside ... and now getting back on topic ... if you believe that mTLD should be granted an proposed allocation of single-character domain names, please specify your thoughts, comments, and parameters, etc. - Pro or Con - here in this space! :gl: :imho:
I maintain that that mTLD has not demonstrated a necessary level of maturity, openess, or professional business standards to move forward with such a proposal, IMHO. I believe it will only serve to create more GREED MONEY for mTLD ... at the expense of the critical developed "ecosystem"! :imho:

Thanks for staying on topic and for your comments, folks!
-Jeff

Ok mr. critique, the floor is now yours -

Since you seem to be the expert on registries, how they run and operate, and their proven 'professionalism', perhaps you can tell us which is the better run registry out there, why they are better than mtld, or any other registry, and then, and most importantly, explain how they are not just selling (still) 'greed money' registrations at this point of the game.

Time to show us your hand, and what you are comparing things to!!




..omg, I forgot -

Thanks For Understanding!! :gl: :imho: _\|/_

 

[Jeff]

Time to show us your hand, and what you are comparing things to!!

One need not look any further than mTLD's documented and thoroughly discussed broken promises and inactions to date, IMHO.

Back on topic, given what you know now TWO YEARS later ... would you support - without any restrictions or specific accountable parameters - the granting of an proposed allocation of single-character domain names to mTLD? :red:
Please provide PROOF that it's not just all about even more GREED MONEY ! :o :imho:

Thanks for the assist.
-Jeff

 

[hawkeye]

One need not look any further than mTLD's broken promises and inactions, IMHO.
Back on topic, given what you know now two years later ... would you support - without any restrictions or specific parameters - the granting of an proposed allocation of single-character domain names to mTLD? :red:
Please provide PROOF that it's not just all about more GREED MONEY !

Thanks for the assist.
-Jeff

Figures you have no answer!! Just make the accusations, and tell someone else to prove it false!!! You just showed your true 'hand'**!! :D :D Just fluff!! False statements just to keep the flames going! A true joke!

Please provide PROOF that it's not just all about more GREED MONEY !

and no jeffie,... YOU prove it is! 'You' are making the accusations, no one else!!

:D :D :D


(**also interpreted as one's self being.)


Thanks for understanding!

 

[mjnels]

the burden of proof is on you, Jeff.

i cant take you to court and tell you to prove you did not just murder my cats sisters' grandma. _\|/_

 

[Jeff]

TWO YEARS later ...

the burden of proof is on you ...

The proof is in the pudding, IMHO. :blink:
Link: http://news.mobi :red: :o

Please provide specific examples of previously premium-auctioned (ie., with mandated development and coding requirements!) domain names ... that are now presently developed as fully stand-alone websites with unique and compelling content that are code compliant for use by those that are "on the go" (and being promoted as such)! :gl:
IYHO's.

What will prevent mTLD from further auctioning possible future single-character domain names ... rather than ensuring and enforcing their development and promotion via the RFP allocation process? mTLD has abandoned the RFP process in the past ... who will prevent them from doing same again? :tri:
PS. Where, exactly, did those auction proceeds go??

Thanks for any insight.
-Jeff

 

[hawkeye]

The proof is in the pudding, IMHO.

Good come back!!

Please provide specific examples of previously premium-auctioned (ie., with mandated development and coding requirements!) domain names ... that are now presently developed as fully stand-alone websites with unique and compelling content that are code compliant for use by those that are "on the go" (and being promoted as such)! :gl:
IYHO's.

What will prevent mTLD from further auctioning possible future single-character domain names ... rather than ensuring and enforcing their development and promotion via the RFP allocation process? mTLD has abandoned the RFP process in the past ... who will prevent them from doing same again? :tri:
PS. Where, exactly, did those auction proceeds go??

Thanks for any insight.
-Jeff

And what does any of this have to do with the progress or viability of the extension???? So what, they changed course. According to your twisted logic, any company that changes their business mission or course of action...that they are to be considered greedy, corrupt, a failure, and disfunctional! The number of companies out there that fall into your "reason for disdain", happen to be more than you seem aware of. _\|/_

Just 'fluff' for flame baiting.


And still waiting for your answer to this -

Ok mr. critique, the floor is now yours -

Since you seem to be the expert on registries, how they run and operate, and their proven 'professionalism', perhaps you can tell us which is the better run registry out there, why they are better than mtld, or any other registry, and then, and most importantly, explain how they are not just selling (still) 'greed money' registrations at this point of the game.

Time to show us your hand, and what you are comparing things to!!

..and don't forget the 'Proof of Greed' you consistantly and readily make accusations of!!

Come on now jeffie, show us some solid actual proof of all your accusations.

 

[namewaiter]

So what, they changed course. According to your twisted logic, any company that changes their business mission or course of action...that they are to be considered greedy, corrupt, a failure, and disfunctional! The number of companies out there that fall into your "reason for disdain", happen to be more than you seem aware of. _\|/_

exactly, with his logic Ford should still be selling the T, movies would still be silent and Apple shouldn't have entered into the mobile world.

things change, approaches change, gameplans change. if something doesn't work or you know of a better way to achieve something, you better make some changes. as the saying goes "change is inevitable, except from a vending machine"

 

[Alan Glennon]

I think single character .mobi will be bad for the extension. The extension needs a bit more time to mature. The mtld's proposal states that they will use an RFP process for the allocation of these names. However, mtld's previous RFP effort was poorly executed to say the least. In fact, I would argue the modest successes .mobi have garnered have simply arisen from the assumption that the mobile Internet is and will be a big deal; .mobi gets chosen because it's one of the most obvious ways to engage the emerging market. Thus, I'll argue that the adoption of .mobi by some fairly solid players (like Bank of America and Foxnews), has nothing to do with any efforts by the mtld, but rather just mobile internet enthusiasm from those businesses.

Another way to state this is that I believe that .mobi can be successful, but it will not be because of mtld (I believe the successes so far are largely in spite of mtld). Mtld actions have been counterproductive to development of the namespace (not enforcing the mobile standards, lack of communication about previous rfp process, and the screwed up Sedo auction come to mind), and they should not be given any more flexibility (or highly lucrative financial opportunities) with respect to their extension until they show they know how to manage what they already have.

 

[RJ]

What is there to even comment on? Let mTLD horde or auction off the single letter domains just like every other decent .MOBI. I don't see any valid reason for making a distinction here between single letters and premium terms.

 

[Jeff]

... show us some solid actual proof of all your accusations.

Link: http://news.mobi :imho:

... and - literally - DOZENS of other previously auctioned (that should have been RFP'd!) premium domain names whose development requirements and coding compliance mandates are not being enforced! :tri:
These are the indisputable FACTS. :gl:

-Jeff

 

[Keith]

What is there to even comment on? Let mTLD horde or auction off the single letter domains just like every other decent .MOBI. I don't see any valid reason for making a distinction here between single letters and premium terms.

The single character names will NOT be auctioned off and mtld will not make a dime from there dispersal. Applications will be submitted and the best laid plans will gain control of the names absolutely free!

 

[hawkeye]

Link: http://news.mobi :imho:

... and - literally - DOZENS of other previously auctioned (that should have been RFP'd!) premium domain names whose development requirements and coding compliance mandates are not being enforced! :tri:
These are the indisputable FACTS. :gl:

-Jeff

And jeffie, that proves nothing!! Nothing to back up your 'GREEDY' accusations! Nothing to back up your 'It's a failure' accusations. Nothing to back up any of your 'negative reratements' of the extension! That simply proves nothing!! Like your still 'lacking ability' (or intential avoidence) to provide any actual proofs to the questions asked of you before, (which you have convienently changed the topics on, to avoid them), so you can hide the fact that you have no proof, just a lot of accusationary fluff!!

And now, everyone is starting to see it for themselves, what it is - accusations, but no proof to them!!

_\|/_


Thanks for Understanding!

 

[Alan Glennon]

Well, first, the previous rfp's had a 500 euro nonrefundable application fee. So 500 euros times the number of applicants (assuming they keep the same payment scheme -- and I doubt they will -- they'll increase it). What became of the previous rfp? I think they approved one. I wonder how many application fees they took with little to no response?

Also, per the previous mtld rfp contact, a vague section is entitled "initial award fee". Hmmm. It's a veiled money grab. Very little doubt.

The single character names will NOT be auctioned off and mtld will not make a dime from there dispersal. Applications will be submitted and the best laid plans will gain control of the names absolutely free!