RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>
Avri, I think that is a valid point. Perhaps we&nbsp;suggest that names
with - in the 3rd and 4th positions continue to be initially reserved&nbsp;and 
include your agruments (and perhaps others)&nbsp;to&nbsp;support a 
recommendation that this is an area for further policy work.&nbsp;Once this 
part of our work is in draft form we could submit it to Ram Mohan for 
expert&nbsp;review and comments. All in all,&nbsp;I still think we can wrap 
this category up in fairly short order.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition 
to Tagged Names Report<BR>From: Avri Doria &lt;avri@xxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, 
February 08, 2007 2:10 pm<BR>To: GNSO RN WG 
&lt;gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>
My inability to call tagged names 'low hanging fruit' is based on an
&nbsp;<BR>
unwillingness to automatically include all names with - in the 3rd
&nbsp;<BR>
and 4th position. I would have no problem saying that reserving
&nbsp;xn-- &nbsp;<BR>
is 'low hanging fruit'. &nbsp;I would probably even be inclined to
reserve &nbsp;<BR>
a sub-section of the space, e.g. all names with x in the first
&nbsp;<BR>
position and - in the 3rd and 4th, but I am uncomfortable with
&nbsp;<BR>reserving a wider space.<BR><BR>
i think that over time applications will develop special methods for
&nbsp;<BR>
handling tags. &nbsp;As the report says, ICANN may want to use other
tags &nbsp;<BR>
for other reasons, and I think this is good and hence a possible
&nbsp;<BR>
reason for reserving a sub-section of that name space. &nbsp;But it may
&nbsp;<BR>
also be the case that others will find good uses for tags once there
&nbsp;<BR>
is support for tags in the application architecture. &nbsp;One of the
&nbsp;<BR>
rules that applies to protocols that should apply to policy about
&nbsp;<BR>
protocols is the notion of extensibility - can the protocol, or
&nbsp;<BR>
rather the policy regarding the protocol, reasonably be used for
&nbsp;<BR>
things beyond what we can conceive of today. &nbsp;Tags seem to me to
such &nbsp;<BR>
a protocol element and I think it unwise to reserve all names with -
&nbsp;<BR>in the 3rd and 4th position.<BR><BR>
I know my arguments probably don't persuade everyone, or perhaps
&nbsp;<BR>anyone, but this is why I do not think it 'low hanging 
fruit.'<BR><BR>a.<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 8 feb 2007, at 11.37, Patrick Jones 
wrote:<BR><BR>
&gt; I have added some information to Chuck&rsquo;s Tagged Names Report.
ICANN &nbsp;<BR>
&gt; has 12 ccTLD sponsorship agreements or MOUs, and each one has an
&nbsp;<BR>
&gt; identical provision on reservation of tagged names. I have inserted
&nbsp;<BR>
&gt; this into Section 5, under ICANN Registry Agreement Requirements.
&nbsp;<BR>
&gt; The provision does not appear in the newer form of lightweight
&nbsp;<BR>&gt; Accountability Frameworks.<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
Patrick<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Patrick L. Jones<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
Registry Liaison Manager<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Internet Corporation for Assigned 
Names and Numbers<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
Marina del Rey, CA 90292<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; Tel: +1 310 301 3861<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
Fax: +1 310 823 8649<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt; 
patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>&gt;<BR>
&gt; &lt;Tagged Names Report for RN-WG 8 Feb 07 Update.doc&gt;
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>