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

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

It's encouraging to see people thinking ahead with regard to possible
recommendations, but let's remember that, as Patrick clarified, we are
just doing our review of reserved names of documentation to help us
define the role of name reservation requirements.  We will soon be
delving into reserve name recommendations, particularly for the easier
categories.  That will be the time when Avri's and Tim's points will be
most applicable.  But I think we might get distracted if we jump to that
point too early.

Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 4:00 PM
To: GNSO RN WG
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report


Avri, I think that is a valid point. Perhaps we suggest that names with
- in the 3rd and 4th positions continue to be initially reserved and
include your agruments (and perhaps others) to support a recommendation
that this is an area for further policy work. Once this part of our work
is in draft form we could submit it to Ram Mohan for expert review and
comments. All in all, I still think we can wrap this category up in
fairly short order.
 

Tim 




        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report
        From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
        Date: Thu, February 08, 2007 2:10 pm
        To: GNSO RN WG <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        Hi,
        
        My inability to call tagged names 'low hanging fruit' is based
on an  
        unwillingness to automatically include all names with - in the
3rd  
        and 4th position. I would have no problem saying that reserving
xn--  
        is 'low hanging fruit'.  I would probably even be inclined to
reserve  
        a sub-section of the space, e.g. all names with x in the first  
        position and - in the 3rd and 4th, but I am uncomfortable with  
        reserving a wider space.
        
        i think that over time applications will develop special methods
for  
        handling tags.  As the report says, ICANN may want to use other
tags  
        for other reasons, and I think this is good and hence a possible

        reason for reserving a sub-section of that name space.  But it
may  
        also be the case that others will find good uses for tags once
there  
        is support for tags in the application architecture.  One of the

        rules that applies to protocols that should apply to policy
about  
        protocols is the notion of extensibility - can the protocol, or

        rather the policy regarding the protocol, reasonably be used for

        things beyond what we can conceive of today.  Tags seem to me to
such  
        a protocol element and I think it unwise to reserve all names
with -  
        in the 3rd and 4th position.
        
        I know my arguments probably don't persuade everyone, or perhaps

        anyone, but this is why I do not think it 'low hanging fruit.'
        
        a.
        
        
        
        On 8 feb 2007, at 11.37, Patrick Jones wrote:
        
        > I have added some information to Chuck's Tagged Names Report.
ICANN  
        > has 12 ccTLD sponsorship agreements or MOUs, and each one has
an  
        > identical provision on reservation of tagged names. I have
inserted  
        > this into Section 5, under ICANN Registry Agreement
Requirements.  
        > The provision does not appear in the newer form of lightweight

        > Accountability Frameworks.
        >
        >
        >
        > Patrick
        >
        >
        >
        > Patrick L. Jones
        >
        > Registry Liaison Manager
        >
        > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
        >
        > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330
        >
        > Marina del Rey, CA 90292
        >
        > Tel: +1 310 301 3861
        >
        > Fax: +1 310 823 8649
        >
        > patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx
        >
        >
        >
        > <Tagged Names Report for RN-WG 8 Feb 07 Update.doc>