Note: The following letter was received by ICANN's General Counsel in hard copy, without being sent in electronic form to email@example.com. The recosideration policy states: "Requests for review or reconsideration must be submitted by email to firstname.lastname@example.org. " Failure to follow the policy's requirements regarding the manner of submission of requests can (and in this case did) result in delays in their processing. Persons submitting reconsideration requests should also ensure they are clearly labelled as such. (Also, those requesting reconsideration should take care not to include designations of confidentiality where none are intended. In this case, additional delay was entailed in obtaining the sender's permission to post this letter.)
The sender of the letter has requested that it be treated as a request for reconsideration under ICANN's reconsideration policy. Accordingly, the General Counsel has referred this letter to the reconsideration committee for such treatment as it deems appropriate.
[Squire, Sanders & Dempsey Letterhead]
24 November 2000
Mr. Louis Touton
By Fax & Overnight Courier
Dear Mr. Touton
Telnic Limited's ("Telnic") ".TEL" top level domain ("TLD") application (the "Telnic Application")
Thank you so much for your time last week to discuss the Telnic Application. I was very pleased that you supported publicly the removal of the Telnic Application from the telephony-related group and I would like to thank you for your team's acknowledgement of the strength of the Telnic Application.
However, as you are aware from our presentation given to the Board of Directors of ICANN (the "Board") on Wednesday 15 November 2000, it is the view of the Directors of Telnic that there is no justifiable reason why the issuance of the .TEL TLD to Telnic was withheld. In light of this, I would be grateful if you could please respond to the following issues below:
ICANN has stated that all of the telephony-related applications were strong and accordingly, this includes the Telnic Application. Nonetheless, the .TEL TLD was not issued by ICANN presumably following the recommendations of the ITU. For the reasons outlined in Squire, Sanders & Dempsey's legal memorandum, I believe that the arguments raised by the ITU were not relevant to the Telnic Application and should not have been used to prevent the issuance of the .TEL TLD to Telnic. In light of this, the Directors of Telnic request ICANN to reconsider its decision not to issue the .TEL TLD at this time.
If, after reconsidering its position, ICANN is still not prepared to issue the .TEL TLD to Telnic at this time, I would be grateful for the opportunity to discuss with you ways in which Telnic can satisfy ICANN's reservations and expedite the process of such issuance. It is my strong view that the Telnic Application is a materially different proposition to the other telephony-related applications and should be considered on its own merits. I would be grateful therefore, to receive a response to this letter by close of business on Friday 1 December 2000. Furthermore, as I will be in the United States from Thursday 7 December 2000, I would be happy to arrange a meeting with you to further discuss the Telnic Application and your response to this letter.
Once again, many thanks for your support and assistance and I look forward to hearing from you shortly.
With kind personal regards,
Cathy B Horton
Comments concerning the layout, construction and functionality of this site
should be sent to email@example.com.
(c) 1999, 2000, 2001 The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. All rights reserved.