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

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

You are right on target Tim.
 
Chuck

________________________________

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 5:36 PM
To: GNSO RN WG
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report


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."
 
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. 
 
Instead, I think we:
 
"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:
 
"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.
 
If we don't take that approach we will produce very little within the
time frame we've been given.
 

Tim 




        -------- Original Message --------
        Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report
        From: Avri Doria <avri@xxxxxxx>
        Date: Thu, February 08, 2007 3:25 pm
        To: GNSO RN WG <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
        
        Hi,
        
        In some sense then, the first category 'low hanging fruit' and
the  
        last category 'really hard and needs further study' become
related.   
        All topics can be reduced to low hanging fruit as long as we
postpone  
        the complexity.
        
        In any case, I would argue against accepting the the '-' in the
3rd  
        and 4th as being on the reserved names list.  I understand the  
        possibility of creating a mechanism for further review leading
to  
        possible removal from the list, but I am apprehensive about this

        becoming one of our working methods.  As we get to some of the
other  
        controversial areas we may start finding it very easy to include

        labels on the reserved names list with the possibility of later

        review.  This could lead to a very long list - I bring up again
the  
        contention i made in council that the controversial words list
could  
        include nearly every word from every religion's holy book and
the  
        marks list could include every possible spelling of every  
        jurisdiction's trademarks in every possible script and the  
        geographical exclusions list would include the name of every
locality  
        in every language in every script (ignoring the consideration of
the  
        dirty words list).
        
        I tend to think we should be trying to keep the reserved list(s)
as  
        short as possible and am concerned that we will come up with
list  
        that rivals the OED in length.  Therefore, I am uncomfortable
with an  
        approach that indicates that we put things on the reserved list
until  
        we decide to take them off it.  I think there should be a very
high  
        barrier to putting new names on the reserved list.
        
        thanks
        a.
        
        
        
        On 8 feb 2007, at 15.59, Tim Ruiz wrote:
        
        > 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>