<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report
- To: GNSO RN WG <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report
- From: Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2007 15:36:29 -0700
<div>
I wasn't under the impression that we are building a list of reserved
names, but that instead we were to "perform an initial examination of the role
and treatment of reserved domain names at the first and second level., with the
goal of providing recommendations for further consideration by the TF or
Council."</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
These tagged names are already reserved, and are already in
use. So the question is do we suggest they should be taken off the
list (not put on a new list)? I really don't think this category
of names needs to be debated. </div>
<div> </div>
<div>Instead, I think we:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
"Perform an initial evaluation" - Review the report produced by Chuck.
Allow anyone else who wishes to comment or add to it, including your concerns
below. If we have rough consensus we then:</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
"Provide recommendations for further consideration" - Include your
comments (and any others agreed on) in our report as support for our
recommendation that tagged names need further consideration by the TF
or Council.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>
If we don't take that approach we will produce very
little within the time frame we've been given.</div>
<div> </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 <avri@xxxxxxx><BR>Date: Thu,
February 08, 2007 3:25 pm<BR>To: GNSO RN WG
<gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR><BR>Hi,<BR><BR>
In some sense then, the first category 'low hanging fruit' and the
<BR>
last category 'really hard and needs further study' become related.
<BR>
All topics can be reduced to low hanging fruit as long as we postpone
<BR>the complexity.<BR><BR>
In any case, I would argue against accepting the the '-' in the 3rd
<BR>
and 4th as being on the reserved names list. I understand the
<BR>
possibility of creating a mechanism for further review leading to
<BR>
possible removal from the list, but I am apprehensive about this
<BR>
becoming one of our working methods. As we get to some of the
other <BR>
controversial areas we may start finding it very easy to include
<BR>
labels on the reserved names list with the possibility of later
<BR>
review. This could lead to a very long list - I bring up again the
<BR>
contention i made in council that the controversial words list could
<BR>
include nearly every word from every religion's holy book and the
<BR>marks list could include every possible spelling of every
<BR>jurisdiction's trademarks in every possible script and the <BR>
geographical exclusions list would include the name of every locality
<BR>
in every language in every script (ignoring the consideration of the
<BR>dirty words list).<BR><BR>
I tend to think we should be trying to keep the reserved list(s) as
<BR>
short as possible and am concerned that we will come up with list
<BR>
that rivals the OED in length. Therefore, I am uncomfortable with
an <BR>
approach that indicates that we put things on the reserved list until
<BR>
we decide to take them off it. I think there should be a very high
<BR>barrier to putting new names on the reserved
list.<BR><BR>thanks<BR>a.<BR><BR><BR><BR>On 8 feb 2007, at 15.59, Tim Ruiz
wrote:<BR><BR>
> Avri, I think that is a valid point. Perhaps we suggest that names
<BR>
> with - in the 3rd and 4th positions continue to be initially
<BR>
> reserved and include your agruments (and perhaps others) to support
<BR>
> a recommendation that this is an area for further policy work. Once
<BR>
> this part of our work is in draft form we could submit it to Ram
<BR>
> Mohan for expert review and comments. All in all, I still think we
<BR>> can wrap this category up in fairly short
order.<BR>><BR>><BR>> Tim<BR>><BR>><BR>> -------- Original
Message --------<BR>> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names
Report<BR>> From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx><BR>> Date: Thu,
February 08, 2007 2:10 pm<BR>> To: GNSO RN WG
<gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx><BR>><BR>> Hi,<BR>><BR>
> My inability to call tagged names 'low hanging fruit' is based on
an<BR>
> unwillingness to automatically include all names with - in the
3rd<BR>
> and 4th position. I would have no problem saying that reserving
xn--<BR>
> is 'low hanging fruit'. I would probably even be inclined to
reserve<BR>
> a sub-section of the space, e.g. all names with x in the
first<BR>
> position and - in the 3rd and 4th, but I am uncomfortable
with<BR>> reserving a wider space.<BR>><BR>
> i think that over time applications will develop special methods
for<BR>
> handling tags. As the report says, ICANN may want to use
other tags<BR>
> for other reasons, and I think this is good and hence a
possible<BR>
> reason for reserving a sub-section of that name space. But it
may<BR>
> also be the case that others will find good uses for tags once
there<BR>
> is support for tags in the application architecture. One of
the<BR>
> rules that applies to protocols that should apply to policy
about<BR>
> protocols is the notion of extensibility - can the protocol,
or<BR>
> rather the policy regarding the protocol, reasonably be used
for<BR>
> things beyond what we can conceive of today. Tags seem to me
to such<BR>
> a protocol element and I think it unwise to reserve all names with
-<BR>> in the 3rd and 4th position.<BR>><BR>
> I know my arguments probably don't persuade everyone, or
perhaps<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>
> > I have added some information to Chuck’s Tagged Names
Report. ICANN<BR>
> > has 12 ccTLD sponsorship agreements or MOUs, and each one has
an<BR>
> > identical provision on reservation of tagged names. I have
inserted<BR>
> > this into Section 5, under ICANN Registry Agreement
Requirements.<BR>
> > The provision does not appear in the newer form of
lightweight<BR>> > Accountability Frameworks.<BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> ><BR>> > Patrick<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>> > Patrick L. Jones<BR>> ><BR>> > Registry Liaison
Manager<BR>> ><BR>> > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and
Numbers<BR>> ><BR>> > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330<BR>>
><BR>> > Marina del Rey, CA 90292<BR>> ><BR>> > Tel: +1
310 301 3861<BR>> ><BR>> > Fax: +1 310 823 8649<BR>>
><BR>> > patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx<BR>> ><BR>> ><BR>>
><BR>
> > <Tagged Names Report for RN-WG 8 Feb 07 Update.doc>
</BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|