2005-06-28 - .TEL (Telnic) Approval to Enter into Contractual Negotiations

There was a discussion regarding the .TEL application and specifically around the issues of compliance with the technical requirements from the sTLD RFP. Raimundo Beca raised the point that the constraints on .TEL should match the constraints place on .MOBI with regard to the registry of E-164 in the .MOBI domain name space.

Additionally, Michael Palage asked that the minutes reflect the following statement on his behalf [as an amendment to the minutes], explaining his position:I was one of several directors that voted "no" in connection with the .TEL application, and there were primarily two reasons on which I did so. The first was in connection with the .MOBI contract which we had approved earlier in that meeting, and, specifically, in the .MOBI contract, there was a provision in Appendix S, Part 7, which states the following with regard to TLD differentiation: As quoted - 'ICANN and the Registry Operator acknowledge that a criterion included in the application process in which the .MOBI TLD was selected and in the previous TLD application expansion round was that a new TLD be clearly differentiated from existing TLDs. ICANN, when undertaking to effect the delegation of new tlds, shall take into consideration internet community input received, including any objections interested third parties may have under policy considerations or applicable law or otherwise regarding the creation of new TLDs.'

As I explained to the board during our teleconference, I was unable to understand the differentiation between the .MOBI and the .TEL TLD. I also brought to the attention of the board the potential confusion which one board member had in connection with a presentation that -- a flash marketing presentation that was available in connection with the .TEL application in which the board member thought it was actually .MOBI. So based upon this confusion, I thought that there was a basis for us to seek community input under this provision before moving forward with the .TEL.

One of the other reasons which i voted "no" was based upon the discussion from the -- Richard Thwaites from the ITU, who provided some discussion regarding the scalability of this particular application.

So these are all of the reasons -- and i guess the one other reason i would like to make is that it was presented to the board that this would be textual-base only.

So this follows up on Raimundo's concerns regarding potential ENUM implications, and also the distinction that .MOBI was geared towards, I believe, companies that were going to be providing services to the telecommunications -- to the mobile phone users and .TEL was geared more towards the individual users. I did not find that an acceptable delineation under the guidelines which we've -- which were stated here."
Following the Board's discussion during the meeting, Tom Niles moved for a vote on the following resolution, and Hagen Hultzsch seconded:

Resolved [05.44] the Board authorizes the President and General Counsel to enter into negotiations relating to proposed commercial and technical terms for the .TEL sponsored top-level domain (sTLD) with the applicant.

Resolved [05.45] if after entering into negotiations with the .TEL sTLD applicant the President and General Counsel are able to negotiate a set of proposed commercial and technical terms for a contractual arrangement, the President shall present such proposed terms to this board, for approval and authorization to enter into an agreement relating to the delegation of the sTLD.