FW: [council] RN-WG SoW

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I move to change the SoW objective re ICANN/IANA names from "Maintain
status quo for now regarding ASCII names" to 'explore basis for current
reservation, and whether to continue it.'  

 

Staff said months ago, during the initial WG session, that they were
looking into any basis for this reservation.  I strongly suspect there
is no other basis than potential user confusion, aka brand protection.
There has been plenty of time to come up with other reasons, and now 30
days more.  The WG and Council should consider whether to continue it in
newTLD contracts. 

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

  _____  

From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:39 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh
Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW

 

Mike,

 

Please see my responses below.

 

Chuck Gomes

 

"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 

 

         

        
  _____  


        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
        Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:45 PM
        To: GNSO Council
        Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW

        Thanks Chuck, I have three comments on this.  First, I think re
1 and 2 character names, that we also should consult GAC regarding 2
character ASCII TLDs as I have suggested in prior email and I believe is
supported by Bruce and others.
        [Gomes, Chuck] As far as I am aware, there is nothing that
prevents us from contacting the GAC on this but it is not clear what our
objective would be.  Their input is of course welcome, but it is
virtually impossible to get any feedback before our 30-day extension
would end. 

         

        Second, re "other reserved names at the second level" (aka
'premium names' and the like), if this is outside the scope of the RN-WG
then that is fine, but we need to add it to the newTLD TF to consider
what to require of applicants in this regard.  I doubt that anyone wants
to allow new TLD registries to reserve whatever names they choose for
however long they like on whatever basis, which is the current reality
at .travel.  There needs to be transparency in the application and
pre-launch phases to address this issue.
        [Gomes, Chuck] I'll leave it to you to deal with this as you
feel you need to. 

         

        Third, I object to re-launching this WG with the objective to
'maintain the status quo for now' re ICANN/IANA related names.  I
believe Staff was looking into any reasoning behind these historical
reservations, other than the obvious reason to avoid user confusion were
'someone else' to register something like iab.web (for example the
Interactive Advertising Bureau...).  We should see whether Staff or
anyone else comes up with any other reasoning.  Assuming not, then it
would make no sense to continue these reservations on the basis of user
confusion.
        [Gomes, Chuck]  Please note that we are not "re-launcing this WG
with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now' re ICANN/IANA
related names'.  The WG SoW contains several much more significant tasks
than the one related to ICANN/IANA related names.  The reason the SoW
was worded as it is regarding ICANN/IANA names is because of direction
received in Lisbon and because it seemed highly unlikely that the issues
in question could be resolved in 30-days. 

         

        Indeed that would be entirely self serving and appalling to many
in the community who have to fight and pay for their defensive
registrations with each new TLD launch, or otherwise fight
cybersquatters who register domain names that correspond to brands.
ICANN should experience that as well, in hopes that better policy may be
made for us all, rather than protecting itself via the Reserved Names
list when such protection is not available to those with a far greater
need for it.  So I recommend we change this objective to 'explore basis
for current reservation, and decide whether to continue it.'
        [Gomes, Chuck] If the Council so directs, we can certainly try
to resolve it but I personally think it is unrealistic and that other
categories are more time sensitive with regard to the introduction of
new gTLDs. 

         

        Mike Rodenbaugh

        Sr. Legal Director

        Yahoo! Inc.

         

        NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected
by attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this
communication and any attachments.

        
  _____  


        From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:43 AM
        To: GNSO Council; Bruce Tonkin
        Subject: [council] RN-WG SoW
        Importance: High

         

        Attached is a fairly detailed SoW for a 30-day extension of the
RN-WG.  The current plan would be to restart the group on Wednesday, 11
April and end it on Thursday, 10 May.  This should allow enough time for
inclusion of the final recommendations into the final New gTLD Report.

         

        As we discussed on Thursday afternoon in Lisbon, we need to take
action on this via email before our next teleconference meeting on 12
April, and I need to communicate the meeting schedule to the working
group the end of this week.  Therefore, I would like to propose the
following motion:

         

        "Per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group
(RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, the RN-WG is extended
for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on 10 May
2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work and with
the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007."

         

        Chuck Gomes

         

        "This message is intended for the use of the individual or
entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."