"Normal" websites under .tel to be realized very soon?

Someone with more experience needs to check the technical details in the legal documents to validate if it is accurate to how we perceive it, it may mean something else on a technical policy level with clauses thrown in.

If what it states is true and if it is what is proposed at this stage, any company who takes over tel could open it up in the same way and as such why do we want Telnic to have the renewal? when they have taken this long to get to this situation.

They could have opened it up long before and saved us all the stress and anger and for some of us the lost investments.

I think it's a cherry and intended to placate the tel community to keep Telnic's control over it, and as such the tel community should decide if keeping them in charge is worth the small cherry or do we stand on principle and ask for a change of guard as Telnic no longer have any real ideas.

I will email in my very very long comment I have been working on in regards to what I believe before the end of the closure date.

TL;DR I don't think Telnic should have the renewal, I think a UK CIC should run tel for the benefit of the tel community and not for the benefit of egos or company pride.

Or it could just mean we can put in more data but they still have control in some way idk, but it needs clarification from the ICANN staff member assigned to it.

Probably Telnic is sick of developing .tel's own hosting templates. (They never have been eager to invest a lot of energy into it.)
For Telnic it would mean much less hassle to let registrants develop their own websites.

whatthetel wrote:If what it states is true and if it is what is proposed at this stage, any company who takes over tel could open it up in the same way and as such why do we want Telnic to have the renewal? when they have taken this long to get to this situation.

I don't think Telnic should have the renewal, I think a UK CIC should run tel for the benefit of the tel community and not for the benefit of egos or company pride.

@whatthetel - thanks for your very informative posts - my comments re the current .Tel situation:

1. I have long been a fan of the "Data in the DNS" concept which would have made direct dialling and direct emailing etc feasible (i.e. without knowing the phone number or email address) but it is clear that this is not now going to happen with the .Tel extension. The system architect of this concept, Henri Asseily, ceased to have an active involvement in the running of Telnic/Telnames some time ago - check out his Telnames .tel (you can of course no longer register a Telnames .tel unless you already own one) at http://Henri.tel and you will find no mention of his involvement with Telnic/Telnames !

2. The problem with the CTH system (which does make it very easy for a user to input date into their .tel domain) is that it is NOT hosted by Telnic BUT by their registrars. This requires a registrar, just for one domain extension out of perhaps 500 or 1000 they sell, to tie up technical and system resources to handle this single extension. That may be fine if a registrar is selling tens of thousands of new .tel registrations a year, but they are not. So why should a registrar commit to using up staff and server resources for an extension that is currently failing and nowadays generates only a relatively low number of registrations/renewals each year ?

3. If .Tel was opened up to operate as a "normal" extension I believe there are many companies running the New gTLDs who could be interested in taking it over. .Tel is a great extension name for anything to do with communication - .Tel domains are very cheap in the resale market at the moment, though I doubt this would stay the case for long if it was opened up to allow normal web development to take place.

4. Telnic needs to be removed as the .Tel Registry. They have proved themselves incapable of seizing opportunities - for example they had a once-in-a-lifetime chance to get .tel on the world stage when Telnic's home city London hosted the 2012 Olympics. What did they do - ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ! Most of their key staff have left, their offices are at their accountants, and the CEO's personal .tel site at http://Kash.tel is in a .tel format impossible to register (Telnames format - see http://www.Telnames.com) unless you already have registered a domain in this format - talk about CATCH 22 !

SO YES PLEASE - LET'S OPEN UP .TEL TO OPERATE AS A NORMAL EXTENSION AND GET RID OF TELNIC AS IT'S FAILED REGISTRY - THEY HAD THEIR CHANCE AND BLEW IT BIG-TIME !

http://MikeSeaton.tel

PS. See http://www.teltalk.org/t4387-afilias-wants-to-buy-failed-gtld#15215 for a possible buyer of the .Tel extension.

Very wise comment by you, Mike!

Could you please file it to ICANN here as well:
http://www.teltalk.org/t4453-you-have-38-days-to-help-icann-decide-who-runs-tel-from-1-march-2017

ixida wrote:Very wise comment by you, Mike!

Could you please file it to ICANN here as well:
http://www.teltalk.org/t4453-you-have-38-days-to-help-icann-decide-who-runs-tel-from-1-march-2017

DONE !

I had been wondering just what to say to ICANN - I could write a whole book on why Telnic should NOT be allowed to renew the .Tel Registry Agreement - the trick is to get your points over succinctly to a third party (ICANN) who does not have the detailed knowledge we forum members have

In the end I decided to copy my post verbatim from http://www.teltalk.org/t4456-normal-websites-under-tel-to-be-realized-very-soon#15820

Hope it helps alert ICANN to the appalling mess Telnic have made and the absolute necessity of replacing them as the .Tel registry, as well as the need now the "Data in the DNS" project has failed to open .Tel up to operate as a "normal" extension.

Fingers crossed !

http://MikeSeaston.tel

If "normal" web sites could now be set up under the .Tel gTLD I believe this would be a game-changer !

I would certainly look at all the .tels I have let drop recently and consider re-registering them - assuming of course that TELNIC GOES !

Their company accounts for the period to 27 December 2015 are due to be submitted to Companies House no later than 27 September 2016 - judging by the existing figures for the period ending 31 December 2014 I wonder if they can satisfy ICANN they still have the financial resources for a further 10-year Registry renewal period ?

See https://companycheck.co.uk/company/03555437/TELNIC-LIMITED/financials#key-financials and also http://domainnamewire.com/2008/11/10/telnic-a-35-million-investment-gone-awry

http://MikeSeaton.tel