ICANN/GNSO GNSO Email List Archives


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

RE: [council] RN-WG SoW

  • To: "GNSO Council" <council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW
  • From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
  • Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2007 11:45:08 -0700
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; s=serpent; d=yahoo-inc.com; c=nofws; q=dns; h=x-mimeole:content-class:mime-version:content-type:subject:date: message-id:x-ms-has-attach:x-ms-tnef-correlator:thread-topic: thread-index:references:from:to; b=tSfkXir8+AF8/OhEgfIy+hrRUiyNgopCN+TJPnU3SBJz1VG72vVTgsZ0sRpD0xsf
  • References: <046F43A8D79C794FA4733814869CDF0701C1CF7D@dul1wnexmb01.vcorp.ad.vrsn.com>
  • Sender: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
  • Thread-index: Acd3f/BDGPzH+QsUQ56EWvAcL4iMRADVF3kg
  • Thread-topic: [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.


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.


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.  


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.'


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


"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." 


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