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

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

Tim,

Here are the contacts I would send questions to at ICANN:

Dan Halloran, Halloran@xxxxxxxxx
Kurt Pritz, pritz@xxxxxxxxx

If you want to run the questions by me, please send them to me.

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 Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:52 PM
> To: Michael D. Palage; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's Call
> 
> Timothy,
> 
> I suggest you go ahead and send questions to ICANN senior 
> management staff and general counsel staff regarding the 
> ICANN and IANA names.  
> 
> 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 7:47 PM
> > To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's Call
> > 
> > Mike,
> > 
> > While you and I both agree on the importance of protecting 
> consumers 
> > against fraud, there is the issue of "scalability."
> > In the WIPO II report it states that there are "limits of 
> what can be 
> > achieved through the consultation processes, such as WIPO Internet 
> > Domain Name Processes or any similar ICANN processes."  As 
> the former 
> > chair of ICANN's Working Group B on protecting famous 
> trademarks I can 
> > tell you that there this is still a lack of uniform 
> international law 
> > to address this situation.
> > 
> > When faced with a lack of uniform international law, ICANN should 
> > tread very careful as the WIPO II report also states "[i]t is 
> > submitted that any protection offered in the gTLDs to country names 
> > (as well as any other place names), as such, would amount to the 
> > creation of new law, as least from the international intellectual 
> > property perspective. A recommendation to adopt such measures 
> > consequently would be a departure from one of the fundamental 
> > principles underlying the Report of the first WIPO Process, namely, 
> > the avoidance of the creation of new intellectual property 
> rights or 
> > the enhanced protection of rights in cyberspace compared to the 
> > protection that exists in the real world."
> > 
> > The reason I challenged the basis of ICANN's reservation of 
> this small 
> > subset of names is exactly because of the slippery slope which you 
> > appear to be advocating.
> > 
> > Notwithstanding this different perspective, I hope that it will 
> > advance a constructive discussion within the group.
> > 
> > Chuck, with regard to your suggestion I see no down side to asking 
> > ICANN for a statement of their position on the reservation of these 
> > names.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Michael
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> > Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:49 PM
> > To: Gomes, Chuck; Michael D. Palage; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's Call
> > 
> > 
> > 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
> > > 
> > > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>