ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives

[council]


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level

  • To: "Neuman,Jeff" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level
  • From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Fri, 21 Mar 2008 08:34:50 -0700
  • Cc: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Chuck Gomes <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>, Daniel Halloran <daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx>
  • List-id: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Reply-to: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • User-agent: Web-Based Email 4.12.29

<html><body>Thanks Jeff. Replying so this gets on the Council list. All good 
questions points to consider.<BR><BR>Tim <BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [council] 
Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names<BR>at the Second-Level<BR>From: 
"Neuman, Jeff" &lt;Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 
10:18 am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: &lt;<a 
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann";>council@gnso.icann</a>.org&gt;, "Chuck Gomes" 
&lt;cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>"Daniel Halloran" 
&lt;daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Feel free to post on Council list (as 
I have no permissions to do so).<BR><BR>In purely theoretical terms if there 
was compelling evidence<BR>demonstrating that for security and stability 
reasons, single letters<BR>names had to be released, then yes that would 
satisfy the requirement.<BR><BR>However, there are other questions that need to 
be addressed:<BR><BR>The first is whether there is compelling evidence 
demonstrating that for<BR>secu!
 rity and stability reasons single letters names should be released.<BR><BR>The 
second is whether there is compelling evidence that for security 
and<BR>stability reasons the process for releasing those names can be 
dictated<BR>by ICANN and/or the community.<BR><BR>Thus, for example, in theory 
(although I cannot imagine how), it could<BR>be the finding that for security 
and stability reasons, single letters<BR>should no longer be reserved. However, 
can a registry choose to keep it<BR>reserved? Can a registry choose to do an 
auction? Can a registry<BR>choose not to do an auction, but release the names 
via an RFP process or<BR>some other mechanism which encourages utilization of 
the names rather<BR>than registrations for speculative or defensive 
purposes?<BR><BR>Each registry should be free to propose its own mechanism for 
releasing<BR>these names (IF they choose to do so), and that should be 
evaluated as<BR>part of the Registry Services Evaluation Process. There were a 
lot of<!
 BR>comments submitted previously that stated that the names should be<
BR>auctioned off and the proceeds should go to ICANN (or some other 
fund).<BR>This one-size fits all solution (really aimed at .com/.net) would 
not<BR>work for every registry and would merely encourage speculation 
or<BR>defensive registrations in every TLD (save perhaps .com and .net) 
and<BR>would not (in my personal opinion) encourage usage of the domain name 
in<BR>other TLDs (which for many TLDs is even more important than 
the<BR>potential income from an auction).<BR><BR><BR><BR>Jeffrey J. Neuman, 
Esq. <BR>Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &amp; <BR><BR>Business 
Development <BR><BR>NeuStar, Inc. <BR>e-mail: <a 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neuman%40Neustar.us'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@Neustar.us</A> 
<BR><BR><BR>-----Original Message-----<BR>From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=tim%40godaddy.com'); return 
false;" href="#Compose">tim<B></B>@godaddy.com</A>] <BR>Sent: Friday, March 2!
 1, 2008 10:52 AM<BR>To: Neuman, Jeff<BR>Cc: <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A>; Chuck Gomes; 
Daniel Halloran<BR>Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on 
Single-Character Names at<BR>the Second-Level<BR><BR>Sorry Jeff. What I was 
asking was if (and that's a big if) this<BR>statement were true:<BR><BR>"Based 
on studies and expert research of the Security and Stability<BR>implications 
there is compelling and just cause for the release of<BR>single-character gTLD 
names at the second-level."<BR><BR>would that fulfill criteria of 3.1(b)(v)(I): 
"unless justified by<BR>compelling and just cause based on Security and 
Stability?"<BR><BR><BR>Tim <BR><BR>-------- Original Message 
--------<BR>Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character 
Names<BR>at the Second-Level<BR>From: "Neuman, Jeff" &lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neu!
 man%40neustar.us'); return false;" href="#Compose">Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@
neustar.us</A>&gt;<BR>Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 8:45 am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" 
&lt;<A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=tim%40godaddy.com'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">tim<B></B>@godaddy.com</A>&gt;, "Daniel 
Halloran"<BR>&lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=daniel.halloran%40icann.org');
 return false;" href="#Compose">daniel.halloran<B></B>@icann.org</A>&gt;<BR>Cc: 
&lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A>&gt;, "Chuck 
Gomes" &lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=cgomes%40verisign.com'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">cgomes<B></B>@verisign.com</A>&gt;<BR><BR>Sorry, 
I do not follow your point.....I must be missing something.<BR><BR>Jeffrey J. 
Neuman, Esq. <BR>Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services &amp; <BR><BR>Business 
Development <BR><BR>NeuStar, Inc. <BR>e-mail: <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=J!
 eff.Neuman%40Neustar.us'); return false;" 
href="#Compose">Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@Neustar.us</A> <BR><BR><BR>-----Original 
Message-----<BR>From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=tim%40godaddy.com'); return 
false;" href="#Compose">tim<B></B>@godaddy.com</A>] <BR>Sent: Friday, March 21, 
2008 9:39 AM<BR>To: Daniel Halloran<BR>Cc: Neuman, Jeff; <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A>; Chuck 
Gomes<BR>Subject: RE: [council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names 
at<BR>the Second-Level<BR><BR>&gt;&gt; "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have 
been implemented pursuant <BR>&gt;&gt; to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement 
(unless justified by compelling <BR>&gt;&gt; and just cause based on Security 
and Stability."<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR><BR>It isn't clear to me that above refers only 
to compelling evidence of a<BR>Security and Stability problem or threa!
 t. Couldn't *compelling and just<BR>cause* be overwhelming, verifiable
, and compelling evidence that there<BR>is no Security and Stability problem or 
threat?<BR><BR><BR>Tim <BR><BR>-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: 
[council] Fwd: ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at<BR>the 
Second-Level<BR>From: Daniel Halloran &lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=daniel.halloran%40icann.org');
 return false;" 
href="#Compose">daniel.halloran<B></B>@icann.org</A>&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, March 
20, 2008 9:44 pm<BR>To: Chuck Gomes &lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=cgomes%40verisign.com'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">cgomes<B></B>@verisign.com</A>&gt;<BR>Cc: 
Jeffrey Neuman &lt;<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neuman%40neustar.us'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@neustar.us</A>&gt;, <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" 
href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A><BR><BR><BR>Chuck,<BR><BR>FYI 
-- copied !
 below is my response to Jeff Neuman's question that you <BR>forwarded to the 
Council list earlier today regarding single-character <BR>names at the 
second-level of gTLDs. I'm cc'ing Jeff here ... he also <BR>gave me the OK to 
send the below excerpts of additional discussion on <BR>this thread in case it 
might be helpful to you and the rest of the <BR>Council. Thank you for your 
attention.<BR><BR>Best regards,<BR>Dan Halloran<BR><BR>cc: <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" 
href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A><BR><BR><BR>Begin forwarded 
message:<BR>&gt; From: Daniel Halloran<BR>&gt; Date: 20 March 2008 
2008-03-20T14:27<BR>&gt; To: "Neuman, Jeff"<BR>&gt; Cc: "Patrick Jones", "Kurt 
Pritz", "John Jeffrey", "Craig Schwartz", <BR>&gt; "Drazek, Keith", "Tindal, 
Richard", "Stacy Burnette"<BR>&gt; Subject: Re: ICANN Synthesis on 
Single-Character Names at the Second- <BR>&gt; Level<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
Jeff,<BR>&gt;<BR!
 >&gt; Thanks for your note. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you
.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; As Patrick indicated below, we're not talking about a 
"Consensus <BR>&gt; Policy" that would force anybody to do anything. I 
understood that <BR>&gt; this was a discussion about possible allocation models 
in the event <BR>&gt; that registries requested the release of these reserved 
names. Your <BR>&gt; comment to the effect that one size won't fit all, and 
your input on <BR>&gt; NeuStar's preferred distribution model are both very 
valuable. I <BR>&gt; think you made your point clearly.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; I hope 
you'll continue to contribute to the community discussion <BR>&gt; about 
whether ICANN needs to continue requiring registries to <BR>&gt; reserve these 
single-character second-level domains, and how the <BR>&gt; domains could be 
allocated should the reservation ever be lifted. As <BR>&gt; you noted, the 
registry agreements differ on whether there is an <BR>&gt; express provision 
for granting exceptions to the reserved strings <BR>&gt; list, but any rese!
 rvation could of course be lifted through a waiver <BR>&gt; or bilateral 
amendment.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Earlier in this thread you asked a hypothetical 
question about <BR>&gt; whether ICANN could "force" registries to allocate 
previously <BR>&gt; reserved names. I haven't heard anyone discuss that as a 
possible <BR>&gt; outcome of the current discussions. If I understand 
correctly, <BR>&gt; you're asking for a purely advisory opinion from ICANN 
about how to <BR>&gt; interpret NeuStar's contract in the hypothetical event 
that ICANN <BR>&gt; might some day try to require NeuStar to release 
single-character <BR>&gt; SLDs? I'm not prepared to answer that right now, and 
I don't think <BR>&gt; ICANN should be in the business of handing out such 
hypothetical <BR>&gt; advisory opinions to its contracted parties. You clearly 
think this <BR>&gt; is important, and we have no problem listening to your 
<BR>&gt; interpretation of the agreement.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; If the GNSO was to 
decide for s!
 ome reason to launch a policy- <BR>&gt; development process on this is
sue (which staff doesn't think is <BR>&gt; necessary), then the Issue Report 
would include a formal General <BR>&gt; Counsel's opinion on whether the issue 
is properly within the scope <BR>&gt; of the ICANN policy process. I think it's 
premature to venture a <BR>&gt; guess on what that opinion would be, but I will 
note that the extent <BR>&gt; of the GNSO's scope is broader than the extent of 
the subjects on <BR>&gt; which gTLD registrars and registries can be "forced" 
to comply with <BR>&gt; Consensus Policies (which I'd guess is at the core of 
your <BR>&gt; question). Said another way, I think we'd agree that just because 
<BR>&gt; the GNSO discusses something doesn't mean ICANN could "force" a new 
<BR>&gt; obligation on registries or registrars on that subject. Makes 
sense?<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Thanks again for your inquiry, and for your patience. 
Please feel <BR>&gt; free to let me know if you have any further questions or 
if we can <BR>&gt; be of any other assistance.<BR>&gt;!
 <BR>&gt; Best regards,<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Dan<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; On 19 Mar 
2008, at 07:13, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; 
All,<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; I was wondering if you all had an answer to the 
questions posed. <BR>&gt;&gt; I am told the GNSO Council has this on their 
agenda next week and <BR>&gt;&gt; they need to know if there are any issues 
about scope before they <BR>&gt;&gt; spend time and resources on this 
issue.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; When can we expect a 
response?<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.<BR>&gt;&gt; Sr. 
Director, Law, Advanced Services &amp;<BR>&gt;&gt; Business 
Development<BR>&gt;&gt; NeuStar, Inc.<BR>[...snip...]<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; 
From: Patrick Jones<BR>&gt;&gt; Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:56 
PM<BR>&gt;&gt; To: Neuman, Jeff<BR>&gt;&gt; Cc: Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; Craig 
Schwartz; Daniel Halloran<BR>&gt;&gt; Subject: RE: ICANN Synthesis on 
Single-Character Names at the <BR>&gt;&gt; Second-Level<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&!
 gt;&gt; Jeff,<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; This paper is an incremental ste
p to advance the work on single- <BR>&gt;&gt; character second-level names. The 
paper was prepared at the <BR>&gt;&gt; direction of the GNSO Council and 
Reserved Names Working Group, <BR>&gt;&gt; which recommended that 
single-character domain names at the second- <BR>&gt;&gt; level be released. 
Consensus policy is not necessary to release <BR>&gt;&gt; single-character 
names. The Schedule of Reserved Names for most <BR>&gt;&gt; registry agreements 
states "Except to the extent that ICANN <BR>&gt;&gt; otherwise expressly 
authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator <BR>&gt;&gt; shall reserve names 
formed with the following labels from initial <BR>&gt;&gt; (i.e. other than 
renewal) registration within the TLD."<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; 
Patrick<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; From: Neuman, Jeff<BR>&gt;&gt; Sent: Wednesday, 
February 27, 2008 6:17 PM<BR>&gt;&gt; To: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning; 
Patrick Jones; Craig <BR>&gt;&gt; Schwartz<BR>&gt;&gt; Cc: Daniel Halloran; 
John Jeffrey<!
 BR>&gt;&gt; Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- 
<BR>&gt;&gt; Character Names at the Second-Level<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; I am 
cc'ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat <BR>&gt;&gt; the 
same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board <BR>&gt;&gt; 
members. I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency <BR>&gt;&gt; 
meeting in Dehli to follow up on these questions.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; I 
would like the following answered:<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Does ICANN believe 
that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate <BR>&gt;&gt; single letter 
domain names in the first place through a Consensus <BR>&gt;&gt; Policy? I note 
the following statement in the report: "ICANN has <BR>&gt;&gt; received many 
inquiries from third parties seeking to register <BR>&gt;&gt; single-character 
domain names, has advised these parties that the <BR>&gt;&gt; names are 
reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation <BR>&gt;&g!
 t; can be removed through a bottom-up process.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;
 - On what basis did ICANN make these statements?<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; I do 
not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these <BR>&gt;&gt; 
reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there <BR>&gt;&gt; 
is a Consensus Policy. If ICANN feels differently, please explain <BR>&gt;&gt; 
the rationale of your statement.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Let me expand on why I 
believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of <BR>&gt;&gt; single letter 
domains. The following is from the .biz agreement <BR>&gt;&gt; (also in .com, 
.net, .info and others) which states that Consensus <BR>&gt;&gt; policies may 
not<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been 
implemented pursuant <BR>&gt;&gt; to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless 
justified by compelling <BR>&gt;&gt; and just cause based on Security and 
Stability."<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; 3.1(d) is the section talking about 
Registry Operations. It <BR>&gt;&gt; includes the following:<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>!
 &gt;&gt; "3.1 (d)(i)(A) Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register 
<BR>&gt;&gt; any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings 
<BR>&gt;&gt; attached as Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at<BR><A 
href="http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt"; 
target=_blank>http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt</a> 
<BR>&gt;&gt; for initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration at the second 
<BR>&gt;&gt; level within the 
TLD."<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; SO, IT STATES THAT A 
CONSENSUS POLICY MAY NOT MODIFY THE RESERVED <BR>&gt;&gt; NAMES LIST "UNLESS 
JUSTIFIED BY COMPELLING AND JUST CAUSE BASED ON <BR>&gt;&gt; SECURITY AND 
STABILITY". ICANN - WHERE IS THE COMPELLING SECURITY <BR>&gt;&gt; 
JUSTIFICATION????????????<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; 
Thanks.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.<BR>&gt;&gt; Sr. 
Director, Law, Advanced Services &amp;<BR>&gt;&gt; Business 
Development<BR>&gt;&gt; NeuStar, Inc.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&g!
 t; From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning<BR>[mailto:<a onclick="Po
pup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=REGYCON-L%40NIC.MUSEUM'); return false;" 
href="#Compose">REGYCON-L<B></B>@NIC.MUSEUM</A> <BR>&gt;&gt; ] On Behalf Of 
Gomes, Chuck<BR>&gt;&gt; Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM<BR>&gt;&gt; 
To: <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=REGYCON-L%40NIC.MUSEUM'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">REGYCON-L<B></B>@NIC.MUSEUM</A><BR>&gt;&gt; 
Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- <BR>&gt;&gt; 
Character Names at the Second-Level<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; I haven't had a 
chance to read this yet but thought I would forward <BR>&gt;&gt; it right 
away.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Chuck<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; From: owner-<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" 
href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>[mailto:owner-<A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann!
 .org</a> <BR>&gt;&gt; ] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones<BR>&gt;&gt; Sent: 
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM<BR>&gt;&gt; To: <A 
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org'); 
return false;" href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>&gt;&gt; 
Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the 
<BR>&gt;&gt; Second-Level<BR>&gt;&gt; Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the 
Council that staff was <BR>&gt;&gt; preparing a paper on single-character 
domain names at the second- <BR>&gt;&gt; level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on 
Single-Character Domain <BR>&gt;&gt; Names at the Second-Level is being sent to 
the Council for <BR>&gt;&gt; information and discussion. Staff is working on 
engagement of a <BR>&gt;&gt; qualified entity or entities to assist with 
additional process <BR>&gt;&gt; development for various auction needs. Further 
information will be <BR>&gt;&gt; provided to the community and the 
Council.<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt!
 ; In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near <BR
>&gt;&gt; the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 
>March?<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Regards,<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; 
>Patrick<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt; Patrick L. Jones<BR>&gt;&gt; Registry Liaison 
>Manager &amp;<BR>&gt;&gt; Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee<BR>&gt;&gt; 
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<BR>&gt;&gt; 4676 Admiralty 
>Way, Suite 330<BR>&gt;&gt; Marina del Rey, CA 90292<BR>&gt;&gt; Tel: +1 310 
>301 3861<BR>&gt;&gt; Fax: +1 310 823 
>8649<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>



<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>