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>