RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's Call

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

I think when users are confused or defrauded, security and stability
suffers.  So I think there is rational basis for these names to be
reserved.  Same with NGOs.  Same with famous brands.  It is a much
bigger security issue when users are confused about Yahoo! or eBay or
Citibank, etc., then when they are confused about IANA.  And it
certainly is not fair that businesses have had to pay for their
defensive reservations, yet ICANN, IANA and Afilias, at least, have long
recognized the issue and protected themselves.  

I think ICANN/IANA names should continue to be reserved as they have
been, for security reasons apparently, and we should figure out a way to
reserve domains related to other entities which pose bigger security
threats than these.

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this
communication and any attachments.


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:40 PM
To: Michael D. Palage; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's Call

Thanks Mike.  Regarding the reservation of names such as IANA, ICANN,
GNSO, IAB, 
IETF, etc., maybe we should request ICANN senior management and General
Council feedback on this to get a statement regarding how they view
this.  How important is it to them to continuing reserving these names
and  how would they fend off potential criticism by NGOs if the
requirement is continued?

Thoughts? 

Chuck Gomes
 
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If
you have received this message in error, please notify sender
immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:59 PM
> To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's Call
> 
> Hello All:
> 
> Here is a succinct statement of my concern regarding the 
> appropriateness of certain ICANN/IANA reserved names. While I 
> fully support the reservation of names that have potential 
> security and stability concerns, e.g., "bq--1k2n4h4b" or 
> "xn--ndk061n", I do have significant reservation with regard 
> to the reservation of names such as IANA, ICANN, GNSO, IAB, 
> IETF, etc. 
> 
> In connection with my extensive work with the WIPO II final 
> report regarding geographical identifiers, I have also spent 
> a lot of time reviewing IGO domain name conflicts. As ICANN 
> promotes itself as an internationally organized, non-profit 
> organization, I believe it creates a potential double 
> standard by which ICANN reserves/blacklists a subset of its 
> names when other IGOs are forced to fend for themselves with 
> other business and trademark owners trying to protect their brand. 
> 
> Given the work on potential modification to the UDRP 
> regarding IGOs, ICANN might wish to consider registering or 
> unreserving those names at such time that a suitable IGO UDRP 
> mechanism is available. Seeking to maintain a double standard 
> potentially subjects ICANN to attacks in other fora.
> 
> With regard to the reserved names of www, nic and whois. 
> Although I have some concern regarding how these words are 
> reserved as discussed on the call today, in the interest of 
> practicality I will withdraw any concerns that I raised 
> today. I believe the most important aspect is allowing 
> registries to use these strings in an intuitive fashion to 
> assist Internet users in finding the information that they 
> want. Since that is possible with the current contractual 
> provisions, our time should be devoted toward other efforts.
> 
> Tamara with regard to the wording of the "common names", I 
> believe a more suitable working title would be "commonly used 
> words and phrases."
> Although most lay people would refer to these as generic 
> names, generic has a distinct legal distinction that we 
> should try to avoid. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael D. Palage
> 
>