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

["Peter Stevenson- Fabulous.com" <peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with Tim and believe that the reserving of gTLD strings from
registration at a second level should be dropped for all new gTLDs.

 

All new gTDL should be treated the same as each other.

 

I do not believe or know of any adverse affects that would occur from this
being dropped

 

Thanks

 

Peter Stevenson

 <http://www.fabulous.com/> Fabulous.com

peter.stevenson@xxxxxxxxxxxx

 

The information contained in this email is confidential.
If you are not the intended recipient, you may not disclose or use the
information in this email in any way.
Dark Blue Sea does not guarantee the integrity of any emails or attached
files.
The views or opinions expressed are the author's own and may not reflect the
views or opinions of Dark Blue Sea.
Dark Blue Sea does not warrant that any attachments are free from viruses or
other defects.
You assume all liability for any loss, damage or other consequences which
may arise from opening or using the attachments

 

  _____  

From: owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, April 27, 2007 12:54 AM
To: Registrar Constituency
Cc: Ray Fassett; Liz Williams
Subject: RE: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05: Reserved Names Working Group:
response needed

 

There are currently numerous ccTLDs that register at the third level from
.com.ccTLD, .net.ccTLD, and .org.ccTLD. There are no known/documented
adverse affects that I am aware of.

 

Currently every two letter ASCII country code is registered at the second
level in .com. A large number, if not all, are currently in use. In fact,
CentralNIC has made a thriving business of registering third level names off
of .us.com, .uk.com, and many others. There are no known/documented adverse
affects that I am aware of.

 

Info.com, biz.com, travel.com, museum.com, jobs.com, and aero.com (as
examples) are all currently registered with no known/documented adverse
affects that I am aware of. In fact, all have been registered and in use
long before the corresponding gTLDs were even applied for and that didn't
seem to deter the subsequent applicants for those gTLD strings.

 

With the upcoming introduction of possibly dozens of new gTLDs, many
composed of generic strings, the number of legacy second level registrations
of these proposed gTLD strings in numerous other TLDs is only going to grow.
I am not aware of any documented evidence that it will create adverse
affects.

 

If the rule of reserving gTLD strings from registration at the second level
is maintained the list of reserved names will become unmanageable and
needlessly restrict valuable and useful names from registration further
restricting the name space. It will also create a growing imbalance in the
way various gTLDs are treated with regard to the names they are allowed to
accept registrations for.

 

I would suggest that this reserved name requirement be dropped for all new
gTLDs, and that existing gTLDs be allowed to request these strings to be
unreserved and that ICANN would not unreasonably deny such requests.


Tim Ruiz
The Go Daddy Group, Inc.






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [registrars] RE: PDP Dec 05:  Reserved Names Working Group: 
response needed
From: "Nevett, Jonathon" <jnevett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, April 26, 2007 8:09 am
To: "Liz Williams" <liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx>, "Registrar Constituency"
<registrars@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: "Ray Fassett" <rfassett@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>




Registrars:

 

Please see the following note from Liz Williams with the ICANN staff.
Please provide any comments on this issue to Liz, Ray, and the list.  It
doesn't make sense to try to get a formal constituency position in less than
a week.

 

Thanks.

 

Jon

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Liz Williams [mailto:liz.williams@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, April 26, 2007 2:56 AM
To: Nevett, Jonathon ; Tony Holmes; David W. Maher; Philip Sheppard;
Kristina Rosette; Milton Mueller
Cc: Ray Fassett
Subject: PDP Dec 05: Reserved Names Working Group: response needed

 

Hello everyone

 

Ray Fassett is chairing a subgroup of the Reserved Names Working  

Group and he's asked me to assist with getting some additional  

information from Constituencies.  Could you please respond to Ray  

directly?

 

"A sub group of the GNSO Reserved Names Working group is examining  

the current practice that requires Registry Operators to reserve from  

registration gTLD strings at the second level (and third level where  

applicable).  The purpose of this work is to advance the progress of  

PDP 05, new TLD's.  At this time, we would like to request your  

feedback to a possible recommendation that would allow for  

registration gTLD strings at the second level.  For example, the  

current practice is that the .jobs Registry Operator requires  

permission from ICANN to unreserve travel.jobs.

 

If this reservation and ICANN approval requirement did not exist for  

new TLD's, what adverse effects, if any, would this have upon the  

members of your constituency?

 

Due the short time line the sub-group is working within to be of  

beneficial service to the work of PDP 05, we respectfully request  

feedback from your constituency no later than end of business day,  

Tuesday May 1, 2007."

 

Many thanks.

 

Liz

 

.....................................................

 

Liz Williams

Senior Policy Counselor

ICANN - Brussels

+32 2 234 7874 tel

+32 2 234 7848 fax

+32 497 07 4243 mob