RE: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05: Reserved Names Working Group: response needed

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Hi Elmar,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
Ray was asking about reserved names. Should strings&nbsp;that match gTLD
strings continued to be reserved at the second level&nbsp;(keeping in mind that the two ASCII letter ccTLDs are part of a different reserved name group)?</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
My arguments were directed toward that question alone.&nbsp;But I don't
disagree with Peter that all new gTLDs should be treated the same, with the possible&nbsp;exceptions&nbsp;of demonstrable risk to stability or security.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
I understand your point regarding&nbsp;RFC 1535,&nbsp;I don't think we
should&nbsp;allow progress and innovation to&nbsp;be hamstrung by such remote&nbsp;possibilities.&nbsp;That RFC was written in 1993, and it doesn't recommend reserving all gTLD strings from being registered at the second&nbsp;level. It recommends fixing the resolvers.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
That fact that&nbsp;it is not an overwhelming problem or risk, as&nbsp;I
pointed out, is evident by the long term use of names like info.com, biz.com, jobs.com,&nbsp;travel.com, etc. even after those second level strings became gTLD strings. </div>
<div>&nbsp;<BR><BR>Tim </div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05: &nbsp;Reserved Names
Working<BR>Group: &nbsp;response needed<BR>From: Elmar Knipp &lt;elmar.knipp@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Mon, April 30, 2007 3:20 am<BR>To: "Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com" &lt;peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: "'Tim Ruiz'" &lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "'Registrar Constituency'"<BR>&lt;registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "'Ray Fassett'"<BR>&lt;rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "'Liz Williams'" &lt;liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR><PRE>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com wrote:

&gt; I agree with Tim and believe that the reserving of gTLD strings from
&gt; registration at a second level should be dropped for all new gTLDs.
&gt;
&gt; All new gTDL should be treated the same as each other.
&gt;
&gt; I do not believe or know of any adverse affects that would occur
from this
&gt; being dropped

Hi Peter and Tim,

treating everything, also unequal things, the same is in general a bad 
idea ;-)

Assume the following example: What would you say if the supervisory
school 
authority of Greenland would define the rules what scholars in Brisbane 
Queensland are not allowed to wear in school? "All schools should be 
treaded the same as each other" (mis-quotation of your statement
above.) I 
assume you would protest against my mis-quoting statement ;-)))

You have to decide on a case by case basis to fit the needs of the
special 
addressed internet community.

@Tim: Look in the (old) RFC 1535, which deals with "... weakness realted 
to the search heuristic invoked by these same resolvers when users
provide 
a partial domain name, ...". I know from some research that these old 
resolvers are still out there (&lt; 1%). We should consider that. I am not 
argueing pro or con, just saying that there are some adverse affects.

Best regards,
Elmar

-- 
Elmar Knipp
CORE Internet Council of Registrars   <A href="http://corenic.org/"; target=_blank>http://corenic.org</A>
WTC II, 29 route de Pre-Bois, CH-1215 Geneva, Switzerland
</PRE></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>