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

["Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Here's what the introductory sentence to Appendix 6 (Schedule of
Reserved Names) for the .com agreement says: "Except to the extent that
ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator
shall reserve names formed with the following labels from initial (i.e.
other than renewal) registration within the TLD:"  [see
http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-06-01mar06.htm]

As you point out Mike, I believe that reserved names are an allowable
topic for consensus policy.  Referring to the .com agreement again
(http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06
.htm), Section 3.1(b)(iv) says, "Such categories of issues referred to
in the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation: . . . (C)
reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered
initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related
to (a) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (b)
intellectual property, or (c) the technical management of the DNS or the
Internet  (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from
registration); . . ."

The question in my opinion is not whether reserved names are within the
picket fence but whether a consensus policy is needed to change the
requirements in existing registry agreements.  Does the ICANN GC believe
that the requirement could/should be changed in any of the following
ways:  1) simply directing gTLD registries/sponsors in writing to cease
reserving single-character names at the second level and thereby
unilaterally amending the agreements; 2) negotiating with
registries/sponsors to amend their agreements; 3) initiating a PDP to
develop a consensus policy.

My reason for forwarding this to the Council in advance of our further
discussion on this issue is that it seems to me that we need to know
whether a PDP is needed or whether the changes could occur without a
PDP.  It appears to me that a PDP that resulted in the removal of the
reservation requirement would accomplish the desired result but it would
also be more time consuming than necessary; therefore, approaches 1) and
2) might be quicker.  But it is not for me to say if they are possible
under existing registry agreements.  So we may want to join Jeff in
asking the questions he has asked, possibly in our own way.

A fourth way that the change could probably happen on a case-by-case
basis would seem to be that any given registry/sponsor could propose a
Registry Service for releasing the single-character names at the
second-level.  This of course would involve the RSTEP process.

Chuck

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 5:40 PM
To: 'Council GNSO'
Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on
Single-Character Names at the Second-Level


Jeff argues that the reservation requirement is a 'service' implemented
by the Registry Operator, and such 'services' cannot be amended by
Consensus Policy.  Seems a stretch to argue that the act of withholding
names from sale is a service, particularly given the definition of
Registry Services in Sec. 3.1(d)(iii) -- operations of the registry
critical to the following
tasks: the receipt of data from registrars concerning registrations of
domain names and name servers; provision to registrars of status
information relating to the zone servers for the TLD; dissemination of
TLD zone files; operation of the registry zone servers; and
dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain name
server registrations in the TLD.  

So perhaps a better reading is that implementation of the reservation
requirement is not a 'service.'  Indeed Sec. 3.1(b)(iv) and
3.1(b)(iv)(C) specifically allows Consensus Policy for issues including
"reservation of names in the TLD that may not be registered
initially...".  And therefore this issue is within purview of potential
Consensus Policy.  

Since we had a Working Group commissioned specifically to look at
Reserved Names last year, presumably the ICANN Counsel already came to
this conclusion long ago (and/or this argument could have been raised
long ago), and so this argument should not delay further policy
development now.

Thanks,
Mike Rodenbaugh

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:21 AM
To: Council GNSO
Subject: FW: [REGYCON] FW: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on
Single-Character Names at the Second-Level

In anticipation of our planned discussion of the single-character
second-level names issue on 27 March, I am forwarding the following
email that raises a fundamental question on that issue.  It seems to me
that it would be good for us to understand whether or not additional
policy development work is need on this issue.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM]
On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:19 AM
To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM
Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on
Single-Character Names at the Second-Level



All,

 

Here is the note I sent on 2/27 that has not been answered.  I have sent
a reminder to ICANN's GC office several times since then to get an
answer.

 

Please feel free to post.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: Neuman, Jeff
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:17 PM
To: 'GNSO Registry Constituency Planning'; 'Patrick Jones'; 'Craig
Schwartz'
Cc: halloran@xxxxxxxxx; John Jeffrey
Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character
Names at the Second-Level

 

I am cc'ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat the
same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board members.
I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency meeting in Dehli
to follow up on these questions.

 

I would like the following answered:

 

Does ICANN believe that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate
single letter domain names in the first place through a Consensus
Policy?  I note the following statement in the report: "ICANN has
received many inquiries from third parties seeking to register
single-character domain names, has advised these parties that the names
are reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation can be
removed through a bottom-up process. 

 

- On what basis did ICANN make these statements? 

 

I do not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these
reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there is a
Consensus Policy.  If ICANN feels differently, please explain the
rationale of your statement.

 

Let me expand on why I believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of
single letter domains.  The following is from the .biz agreement (also
in .com, .net, .info and others) which states that Consensus policies
may not 

 

"3.1 (b)(v)(I)  alter services that have been implemented pursuant to
Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling and
just cause based on Security and Stability."

 

3.1(d) is the section talking about Registry Operations.  It includes
the following:

 

"3.1 (d)(i)(A)  Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register any
TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings attached
as Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at
http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt for initial (i.e.,
other than renewal) registration at the second level within the TLD."

So, it states that a consensus policy may not modify the reserved names
list "Unless justified by compelling and just cause based on security
and stability."  ICANN - Where is the compelling security
justification??

Thanks.

 

Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. 
Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services  & 

Business Development 

NeuStar, Inc. 
e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx>  

________________________________

From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM]
On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM
To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM
Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character
Names at the Second-Level

 

I haven't had a chance to read this yet but thought I would forward it
right away.

 

Chuck

 

________________________________

From: owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of Patrick Jones
Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM
To: council@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the
Second-Level

Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the Council that staff was
preparing a paper on single-character domain names at the second-level.
The attached ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Domain Names at the
Second-Level is being sent to the Council for information and
discussion. Staff is working on engagement of a qualified entity or
entities to assist with additional process development for various
auction needs. Further information will be provided to the community and
the Council. 

 

In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near the end
of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 March?

 

Regards,

 

Patrick

 

Patrick L. Jones

Registry Liaison Manager &

Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers

4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330

Marina del Rey, CA 90292

Tel: +1 310 301 3861

Fax: +1 310 823 8649

patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx