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

[Denise Michel <denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx>]

Please copy Tim Denton on all of your questions/requests to ICANN staff. 
 He'll follow-up, if necessary, to ensure that you receive a timely and 
full response, and will make sure all staff understand the strict time 
line the RN-WG is under and the scope of its work.
Thanks.

Denise

Denise Michel
Vice President, Policy Development
ICANN   www.icann.org
denise.michel@xxxxxxxxx
+32-2-234-7876 office
+1-408-429-3072 mobile
+32-2-234-7848 fax

Gomes, Chuck wrote:
> 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