<<<
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" <Jeff.Neuman@xxxxxxxxxx><BR>Date: Fri, March 21, 2008
10:18 am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz" <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx><BR>Cc: <<a
href="mailto:council@gnso.icann";>council@gnso.icann</a>.org>, "Chuck Gomes"
<cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>,<BR>"Daniel Halloran"
<daniel.halloran@xxxxxxxxx><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 & <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" <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neu!
man%40neustar.us'); return false;" href="#Compose">Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@
neustar.us</A>><BR>Date: Fri, March 21, 2008 8:45 am<BR>To: "Tim Ruiz"
<<A onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=tim%40godaddy.com');
return false;" href="#Compose">tim<B></B>@godaddy.com</A>>, "Daniel
Halloran"<BR><<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=daniel.halloran%40icann.org');
return false;" href="#Compose">daniel.halloran<B></B>@icann.org</A>><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" <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=cgomes%40verisign.com');
return false;" href="#Compose">cgomes<B></B>@verisign.com</A>><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 & <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>>> "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have
been implemented pursuant <BR>>> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement
(unless justified by compelling <BR>>> and just cause based on Security
and Stability."<BR>>><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 <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=daniel.halloran%40icann.org');
return false;"
href="#Compose">daniel.halloran<B></B>@icann.org</A>><BR>Date: Thu, March
20, 2008 9:44 pm<BR>To: Chuck Gomes <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=cgomes%40verisign.com');
return false;" href="#Compose">cgomes<B></B>@verisign.com</A>><BR>Cc:
Jeffrey Neuman <<A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=Jeff.Neuman%40neustar.us');
return false;" href="#Compose">Jeff.Neuman<B></B>@neustar.us</A>>, <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>> From: Daniel Halloran<BR>> Date: 20 March 2008
2008-03-20T14:27<BR>> To: "Neuman, Jeff"<BR>> Cc: "Patrick Jones", "Kurt
Pritz", "John Jeffrey", "Craig Schwartz", <BR>> "Drazek, Keith", "Tindal,
Richard", "Stacy Burnette"<BR>> Subject: Re: ICANN Synthesis on
Single-Character Names at the Second- <BR>> Level<BR>><BR>>
Jeff,<BR>><BR!
>> Thanks for your note. Sorry for the delay in getting back to you
.<BR>><BR>> As Patrick indicated below, we're not talking about a
"Consensus <BR>> Policy" that would force anybody to do anything. I
understood that <BR>> this was a discussion about possible allocation models
in the event <BR>> that registries requested the release of these reserved
names. Your <BR>> comment to the effect that one size won't fit all, and
your input on <BR>> NeuStar's preferred distribution model are both very
valuable. I <BR>> think you made your point clearly.<BR>><BR>> I hope
you'll continue to contribute to the community discussion <BR>> about
whether ICANN needs to continue requiring registries to <BR>> reserve these
single-character second-level domains, and how the <BR>> domains could be
allocated should the reservation ever be lifted. As <BR>> you noted, the
registry agreements differ on whether there is an <BR>> express provision
for granting exceptions to the reserved strings <BR>> list, but any rese!
rvation could of course be lifted through a waiver <BR>> or bilateral
amendment.<BR>><BR>> Earlier in this thread you asked a hypothetical
question about <BR>> whether ICANN could "force" registries to allocate
previously <BR>> reserved names. I haven't heard anyone discuss that as a
possible <BR>> outcome of the current discussions. If I understand
correctly, <BR>> you're asking for a purely advisory opinion from ICANN
about how to <BR>> interpret NeuStar's contract in the hypothetical event
that ICANN <BR>> might some day try to require NeuStar to release
single-character <BR>> SLDs? I'm not prepared to answer that right now, and
I don't think <BR>> ICANN should be in the business of handing out such
hypothetical <BR>> advisory opinions to its contracted parties. You clearly
think this <BR>> is important, and we have no problem listening to your
<BR>> interpretation of the agreement.<BR>><BR>> If the GNSO was to
decide for s!
ome reason to launch a policy- <BR>> development process on this is
sue (which staff doesn't think is <BR>> necessary), then the Issue Report
would include a formal General <BR>> Counsel's opinion on whether the issue
is properly within the scope <BR>> of the ICANN policy process. I think it's
premature to venture a <BR>> guess on what that opinion would be, but I will
note that the extent <BR>> of the GNSO's scope is broader than the extent of
the subjects on <BR>> which gTLD registrars and registries can be "forced"
to comply with <BR>> Consensus Policies (which I'd guess is at the core of
your <BR>> question). Said another way, I think we'd agree that just because
<BR>> the GNSO discusses something doesn't mean ICANN could "force" a new
<BR>> obligation on registries or registrars on that subject. Makes
sense?<BR>><BR>> Thanks again for your inquiry, and for your patience.
Please feel <BR>> free to let me know if you have any further questions or
if we can <BR>> be of any other assistance.<BR>>!
<BR>> Best regards,<BR>><BR>> Dan<BR>><BR>><BR>> On 19 Mar
2008, at 07:13, Neuman, Jeff wrote:<BR>><BR>>>
All,<BR>>><BR>>> I was wondering if you all had an answer to the
questions posed. <BR>>> I am told the GNSO Council has this on their
agenda next week and <BR>>> they need to know if there are any issues
about scope before they <BR>>> spend time and resources on this
issue.<BR>>><BR>>> When can we expect a
response?<BR>>><BR>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.<BR>>> Sr.
Director, Law, Advanced Services &<BR>>> Business
Development<BR>>> NeuStar, Inc.<BR>[...snip...]<BR>>><BR>>>
From: Patrick Jones<BR>>> Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2008 1:56
PM<BR>>> To: Neuman, Jeff<BR>>> Cc: Kurt Pritz; John Jeffrey; Craig
Schwartz; Daniel Halloran<BR>>> Subject: RE: ICANN Synthesis on
Single-Character Names at the <BR>>> Second-Level<BR>>><BR>&!
gt;> Jeff,<BR>>><BR>>> This paper is an incremental ste
p to advance the work on single- <BR>>> character second-level names. The
paper was prepared at the <BR>>> direction of the GNSO Council and
Reserved Names Working Group, <BR>>> which recommended that
single-character domain names at the second- <BR>>> level be released.
Consensus policy is not necessary to release <BR>>> single-character
names. The Schedule of Reserved Names for most <BR>>> registry agreements
states "Except to the extent that ICANN <BR>>> otherwise expressly
authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator <BR>>> shall reserve names
formed with the following labels from initial <BR>>> (i.e. other than
renewal) registration within the TLD."<BR>>><BR>>>
Patrick<BR>>><BR>>> From: Neuman, Jeff<BR>>> Sent: Wednesday,
February 27, 2008 6:17 PM<BR>>> To: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning;
Patrick Jones; Craig <BR>>> Schwartz<BR>>> Cc: Daniel Halloran;
John Jeffrey<!
BR>>> Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-
<BR>>> Character Names at the Second-Level<BR>>><BR>>> I am
cc'ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat <BR>>> the
same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board <BR>>>
members. I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency <BR>>>
meeting in Dehli to follow up on these questions.<BR>>><BR>>> I
would like the following answered:<BR>>><BR>>> Does ICANN believe
that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate <BR>>> single letter
domain names in the first place through a Consensus <BR>>> Policy? I note
the following statement in the report: "ICANN has <BR>>> received many
inquiries from third parties seeking to register <BR>>> single-character
domain names, has advised these parties that the <BR>>> names are
reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation <BR>>&g!
t; can be removed through a bottom-up process.<BR>>><BR>>>
- On what basis did ICANN make these statements?<BR>>><BR>>> I do
not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these <BR>>>
reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there <BR>>>
is a Consensus Policy. If ICANN feels differently, please explain <BR>>>
the rationale of your statement.<BR>>><BR>>> Let me expand on why I
believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of <BR>>> single letter
domains. The following is from the .biz agreement <BR>>> (also in .com,
.net, .info and others) which states that Consensus <BR>>> policies may
not<BR>>><BR>>> "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been
implemented pursuant <BR>>> to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless
justified by compelling <BR>>> and just cause based on Security and
Stability."<BR>>><BR>>> 3.1(d) is the section talking about
Registry Operations. It <BR>>> includes the following:<BR>>><BR>!
>> "3.1 (d)(i)(A) Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register
<BR>>> any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings
<BR>>> 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>>> for initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration at the second
<BR>>> level within the
TLD."<BR>>><BR>>><BR>>><BR>>> SO, IT STATES THAT A
CONSENSUS POLICY MAY NOT MODIFY THE RESERVED <BR>>> NAMES LIST "UNLESS
JUSTIFIED BY COMPELLING AND JUST CAUSE BASED ON <BR>>> SECURITY AND
STABILITY". ICANN - WHERE IS THE COMPELLING SECURITY <BR>>>
JUSTIFICATION????????????<BR>>><BR>>>
Thanks.<BR>>><BR>>> Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq.<BR>>> Sr.
Director, Law, Advanced Services &<BR>>> Business
Development<BR>>> NeuStar, Inc.<BR>>><BR>>&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>>> ] On Behalf Of
Gomes, Chuck<BR>>> Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM<BR>>>
To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=REGYCON-L%40NIC.MUSEUM');
return false;" href="#Compose">REGYCON-L<B></B>@NIC.MUSEUM</A><BR>>>
Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single- <BR>>>
Character Names at the Second-Level<BR>>><BR>>> I haven't had a
chance to read this yet but thought I would forward <BR>>> it right
away.<BR>>><BR>>> Chuck<BR>>><BR>>> 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>>> ] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones<BR>>> Sent:
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM<BR>>> To: <A
onclick="Popup.composeWindow('pcompose.php?sendto=council%40gnso.icann.org');
return false;" href="#Compose">council<B></B>@gnso.icann.org</A><BR>>>
Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the
<BR>>> Second-Level<BR>>> Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the
Council that staff was <BR>>> preparing a paper on single-character
domain names at the second- <BR>>> level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on
Single-Character Domain <BR>>> Names at the Second-Level is being sent to
the Council for <BR>>> information and discussion. Staff is working on
engagement of a <BR>>> qualified entity or entities to assist with
additional process <BR>>> development for various auction needs. Further
information will be <BR>>> provided to the community and the
Council.<BR>>><BR>>>!
; In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near <BR
>>> the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6
>March?<BR>>><BR>>> Regards,<BR>>><BR>>>
>Patrick<BR>>><BR>>> Patrick L. Jones<BR>>> Registry Liaison
>Manager &<BR>>> Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee<BR>>>
>Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers<BR>>> 4676 Admiralty
>Way, Suite 330<BR>>> Marina del Rey, CA 90292<BR>>> Tel: +1 310
>301 3861<BR>>> Fax: +1 310 823
>8649<BR>>><BR>>><BR>><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR><BR></BLOCKQUOTE></body></html>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|