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

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

Great questions Avri.  These are the kind of points that need to be
brought out when we specifically look at the tagged name category.

Chuck 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
> Sent: Thursday, February 08, 2007 3:11 PM
> To: GNSO RN WG
> Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Addition to Tagged Names Report
> 
> 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>
> 
> 
>