RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction

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

Chris,
 
The archives for the GNSO Reserved Names Working Group (RN-WG) are
located at:
 
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rn-wg/
 
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." 
 


________________________________

	From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx]
On Behalf Of kidsearch
	Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 8:57 AM
	To: Tim Ruiz; Dominik Filipp
	Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx; Stephane Bortzmeyer; Danny Younger
	Subject: Re: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested Faction
	
	
	Where can I find archives of that WG Tim? Like to see who is on
it and what they had to say.
	 
	Chris McElroy aka NameCritic
	http://www.articlecontentprovider.com
	 

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Tim Ruiz <mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>  
		To: Dominik Filipp <mailto:dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>  
		Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx ; Stephane Bortzmeyer
<mailto:bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>  ; Danny Younger
<mailto:dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>  
		Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 10:07 AM
		Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested
Faction

		Dominik,
		 
		The first priority of the Reserved Names WG is to
provide background and recommendations to the new gTLDs regarding the
introduction of new gTLDs, specifically reserved strings at the top
level. The terms of work for the WG also includs reviewing reserved
names at the second level since such reservation requirements will
affect any new gTLD operators that are selected. 
		 
		So it is not that ICANN has prioritized the release of
single character names at the second level above everything else, it is
included in the work as applicable to the introduction of new gTLDs. But
of course, there's no doubt that various parties within the WG are
primarily involved for that reason. And there's no doubt that the
lobbying done by some of those parties is partly why that category of
reserved names is included in the WG's terms of work.


		Tim 
		



			-------- Original Message --------
			Subject: RE: [ga] Re: Capture by a
Self-interested Faction
			From: "Dominik Filipp" <dominik.filipp@xxxxxxxx>
			Date: Fri, March 09, 2007 2:51 am
			To: "Stephane Bortzmeyer" <bortzmeyer@xxxxxx>,
"Danny Younger"
			<dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx>
			Cc: <ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
			
			There is perhaps no reasons to reserve
one-letter names in general but
			it's surprising that ICANN, instead of dealing
with much more important
			and urgent agenda, is putting its effort into
something that again
			smacks of sort of bargaining. We are talking
about exactly 26 domain
			names gaining extreme value during the long time
they are being
			reserved, worthy of millions bucks each when
auctioned. You can be damn
			sure most of the names once released will soon
appear at auctions and
			all the profit will come to the pockets of those
demanding their release
			at ICANN today.
			
			So, not the names themselves but the order of
importance is what makes
			me sick.
			
			Dominik
			
			
			-----Original Message-----
			From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf
			Of Stephane Bortzmeyer
			Sent: Thursday, March 08, 2007 2:02 PM
			To: Danny Younger
			Cc: ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
			Subject: [ga] Re: Capture by a Self-interested
Faction
			
			On Wed, Mar 07, 2007 at 03:35:18PM -0800,  Danny
Younger
			<dannyyounger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote  a message of 71
lines which said:
			>> These recommendations should be thrown into
the trash,
			
			> Why? There were absolutely no reasons to
reserve these names.
			> Therefore, there are no reasons to keep them
frozen.
			
			> I am under the strong feeling that some people
will refuse
			> anything coming from ICANN. Most of the time,
ICANN is accused of
			> regulating too much. And now that a report
suggest to loosen the grip,
			> always-complainers regret the old restriction?