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]

So basically Jeff, your a non-profit domainer.

How does this relate to the fact of mTLD abandoning the RFP process for GREED MONEY ... and then not enforcing the mandated development and coding compliance requirements?
Please note what happened to former RFP News.mobi!
IYHO.

... just the same ole RFP crapola whining, which does nothing to prove your false accusations and untruths you spread here, but refuse to substantiate! HAHAHAHA got nothing do you?!!!!?

Please be kind and professional ... the RFP process should be the foundation for any possible future allocation of single-character domain names, IMHO. That fact that mTLD dropped the ball on this process once already - and has failed to timely enforce the develoment mandates for those domains that were instead auctioned for profit - should be a RED FLAG factor for consideration in the context of this topic for current discussion, in my judgement. :gl:
Please stay on topic!

Which facts are you disputing ... and when did mTLD state it was an "initial" time table?

-Jeff

 

[Keith]

Who said anything ... about an "initial" time table?!? :o
More excuses for a failed extension and registry, IMHO.
-Jeff

You know...initial. As in, sh*t happens.

Now you say failed. Is this in terms of your aftermarket mobi sales? If so I completely understand where you're coming from

 

[hawkeye]

Which facts are you disputing ... and when did mTLD state it was an "initial" time table?

-Jeff

Ok, you may have forgot (convienently) the subject at hand, so we'll 'again' print it -

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 since all you do is gripe about the RFP as if that is the only thing that matters, are you saying if they do enforce it, then you'll support it from then on??

 

[Jeff]

Who said anything ... about an "initial" time table?!? :o
More excuses for a failed extension and registry, IMHO.
-Jeff

You know...initial. As in, sh*t happens.

I don't understand what you're saying ... this is the very first I have heard of any "initial" time table, IMHO.
Again, it certainly sounds a lot like the excuses we've seen in the past with regard to mTLD! :cy:

Now you say failed. Is this in terms of your aftermarket mobi sales? If so I completely understand where you're coming from

I profited from my three "dot Mobey" sales ... but I know for a FACT that many, many have lost their shirts with "dot Mobey" registrations and renewals (especially during the time that it was being hyped on the various forums)! I humbly state that mTLD and the "dot Mobey" has indeed failed, in part, because they abandoned the RFP process (again, please note what happened with News.mobi!) and failed to timely enforce the development and coding compliance mandates! :imho:
Just my two sense.

And since all you do is gripe about the RFP as if that is the only thing that matters, are you saying if they do enforce it, then you'll support it from then on??

In the context of THIS TOPIC, the RFP process should be a critical consideration ... and mTLD's track record in this regard is - literally - not worth the paper it was written on (and subsequently removed from their website), IMHO. It's not the only thing that matters, of course ... but it has caused irreparable harm to the credibility of mTLD! :imho:

-Jeff

 

[mjnels]

so people lost their shirts with .mobi speculation..

wow, big huge surprise.... i didnt see that one coming in 2006.


i could probably pull up a post of mine from 2006 saying this would happen.... its just common sense, my good sir.

 

[hawkeye]

Whatever jeffie! You argue 'one point' that means squat overall, and consistantly refuse to answer others questions to your points, and keep squawking the same ole tired accusations and false hoods. All lies, false statements, misleading statements, and a constant refusal to answer others questions, while accusing others of not answering your nonsensical questions. Sad little life some lead out there.

This place is so much more peaceful and cohesive whey you're not around.


Wait for it...




_\|/_

 

[Jeff]

i could probably pull up a post of mine from 2006 saying this would happen.... its just common sense, my good sir.

If it is germaine to the current TOPIC AT HAND ... please quote your post(s) here in this space for additional friendly discussion, IMHO. :gl: :talk:
Thanks for staying on topic, friend.

This place is so much more peaceful and cohesive whey you're not around.

I think most fine folks - if they can successfully wade through the enthusiasts' constant hype, distractions and subterfuge - prefer the necessary balance, humbly ... but, again, which facts are you disputing ... and when did mTLD state it was an "initial" time table?

-Jeff

 

[mjnels]

If it is germaine to the current TOPIC AT HAND ... please quote your post(s) here in this space for additional friendly discussion, IMHO. :talk:

Thanks much, friend.
-Jeff

actually, i lied. all i have is a Kenny Rogers video which is extremely pertinent to the .mobi renewal thing:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kn481KcjvMo


i didnt really know anyone was going to lose with .mobi speculation back in September 2006.... i genuinely thought we were all going to be rich by now. Even the guys that registered crappy names, i figured they'd at least make 1 measly million.

 

[hawkeye]

...I think...

Well that itself explains a lot!


Still, no answers to presented questions, just more redirection retorts. (guess there's no answers for lies and false accusations is there.)

 

[DomainTalker]

The proof is in the pudding, IMHO.

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 that are code compliant for use by those that are "on the go" (and being promoted as such)! :gl:
IYHO's.

Here you go - These are my own .mobi sites:


www.Camera.mobi

www.Beauty.mobi


...They are....Premium-auctioned (ie., Oct 2007 - with mandated development and coding requirements!) domain names ... that are now presently developed as fully stand-alone websites that are code compliant (they both score 5/5 code compliance at ready.mobi) for use by those that are "on the go" (and being promoted as such)...


"The proof is in the pudding, IMHO", as you say, Jeff.

.

 

[Jeff]

www.Camera.mobi

www.Beauty.mobi

^ One by one ... you're adding to the CRITICAL stand-alone developed "ecosystem", congrats DT! :music:
I wish more "enthusiasts" would voluntarily develop, and also that mTLD would enforce their development, as has been mandated! :yell: :imho:

(guess there's no answers for lies and false accusations is there.)

Again, specifically ... which facts are you disputing?

-Jeff

 

[mjnels]

I wish more "enthusiasts" would voluntarily develop, and also that mTLD would enforce their development, as has been mandated!

why though?

.mobi ("dot Mobey") is a branding nightmare... anyone who develops on .mobi is wasting their time... dont you agree?

 

[Jeff]

why though?

.mobi ("dot Mobey") is a branding nightmare... anyone who develops on .mobi is wasting their time... dont you agree?

There are always exceptions to every rule ... we've seen isolated examples of success with such obscure, albeit short, extensions as .SC (Whois.sc, for instance) being uniquely and compellingly developed that have stood out, IMHO. :gl:

But I definitely concur that the long, two-syllabled, even more obscure, and confusingly - ie., a branding nightmare! - unprofessional "dot Mobey" is a MAJOR LEAGUE hurdle to try to overcome (especially when considering its registry is not enforcing the development mandates of other previously auctioned domains or substantially promoting the extension to the masses!), as well! :imho:

Just my two sense.
-Jeff

 

[hawkeye]

... which facts are you disputing?

-Jeff

Again, redirection to avoid having to prove your false accusations and misleading lies. Sad.

Well one thing is a fact.. More people have left this forum due to you and your redundant (sanctioned?) negativity, than for any other reason. And that...is undisputable!



again..

Thanks for understanding! _\|/_

 

[Jeff]

... which facts are you disputing?

-Jeff

Again, redirection to avoid having to prove your false accusations and misleading lies.

I've been professionally sharing my OPINIONS in a domain name discussion thread - this is what we do on domain name forums - and stating FACTS as appropriate (for example, mTLD not timely enforcing the development (and coding) requirements mandate for previously auctioned domain names (and I specifically used the instance of "News.mobi" here in this thread), and mTLD abandoning the RFP process (again, using the "News.mobi" instance), and the indisputable FACT that 1,000's and 1,000's of "reserved" domains still languish undeveloped at mTLD, IMHO.

All of these opinions - and referenced FACTS - are germaine to the topic at hand! :gl:
One more time, friend ... which facts are you disputing?

Thanks for understanding.
-Jeff

 

[Mark]

Could ALL of you JackAsses go somewhere else to argue ? And I do mean ALL !