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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>
Interesting argument. Not sure I agree, but I am&nbsp;beginning
to&nbsp;think that&nbsp;there&nbsp;are&nbsp;important technical and 
security&nbsp;reasons to keep all single letter SLDNs reserved. </div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development &amp; Policy<BR>The Go 
Daddy Group, Inc.<BR><BR>
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or 
confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy 
of this message and its attachments.<BR><BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 
Follow-Up to Today's Call<BR>From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" 
&lt;mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, February 15, 2007 4:49 pm<BR>To: 
"Gomes, Chuck" &lt;cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;, "Michael D. 
Palage"<BR>&lt;Michael@xxxxxxxxxx&gt;, &lt;gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>I 
think when users are confused or defrauded, security and stability<BR>
suffers. &nbsp;So I think there is rational basis for these names to
be<BR>
reserved. &nbsp;Same with NGOs. &nbsp;Same with famous brands. &nbsp;It
is a much<BR>
bigger security issue when users are confused about Yahoo! or eBay
or<BR>
Citibank, etc., then when they are confused about IANA. &nbsp;And
it<BR>certainly is not fair that businesses have had to pay for their<BR>
defensive reservations, yet ICANN, IANA and Afilias, at least, have
long<BR>recognized the issue and protected themselves. &nbsp;<BR><BR>
I think ICANN/IANA names should continue to be reserved as they
have<BR>
been, for security reasons apparently, and we should figure out a way
to<BR>reserve domains related to other entities which pose bigger 
security<BR>threats than these.<BR><BR>Mike Rodenbaugh<BR><BR>Sr. Legal 
Director<BR><BR>Yahoo! Inc.<BR><BR><BR><BR>
NOTICE: &nbsp;This communication is confidential and may be protected
by<BR>
attorney-client and/or work product privilege. &nbsp;If you are not
the<BR>intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete 
this<BR>communication and any attachments.<BR><BR><BR>-----Original 
Message-----<BR>
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
On<BR>Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck<BR>Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:40 
PM<BR>To: Michael D. Palage; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] 
Follow-Up to Today's Call<BR><BR>
Thanks Mike. &nbsp;Regarding the reservation of names such as IANA,
ICANN,<BR>GNSO, IAB, <BR>
IETF, etc., maybe we should request ICANN senior management and
General<BR>
Council feedback on this to get a statement regarding how they
view<BR>
this. &nbsp;How important is it to them to continuing reserving these
names<BR>
and &nbsp;how would they fend off potential criticism by NGOs if
the<BR>requirement is continued?<BR><BR>Thoughts? <BR><BR>Chuck Gomes<BR><BR>
"This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity
to<BR>which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,<BR>
confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law.
Any<BR>
unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly prohibited.
If<BR>you have received this message in error, please notify 
sender<BR>immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission." 
<BR><BR><BR>&gt; -----Original Message-----<BR>&gt; From: 
owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx <BR>
&gt; [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael D.
Palage<BR>&gt; Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:59 PM<BR>&gt; To: 
gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR>&gt; Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Follow-Up to Today's 
Call<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Hello All:<BR>&gt; <BR>
&gt; Here is a succinct statement of my concern regarding the
<BR>
&gt; appropriateness of certain ICANN/IANA reserved names. While I
<BR>
&gt; fully support the reservation of names that have potential
<BR>
&gt; security and stability concerns, e.g., "bq--1k2n4h4b" or
<BR>
&gt; "xn--ndk061n", I do have significant reservation with regard
<BR>
&gt; to the reservation of names such as IANA, ICANN, GNSO, IAB,
<BR>&gt; IETF, etc. <BR>&gt; <BR>
&gt; In connection with my extensive work with the WIPO II final
<BR>
&gt; report regarding geographical identifiers, I have also spent
<BR>
&gt; a lot of time reviewing IGO domain name conflicts. As ICANN
<BR>
&gt; promotes itself as an internationally organized, non-profit
<BR>&gt; organization, I believe it creates a potential double <BR>
&gt; standard by which ICANN reserves/blacklists a subset of its
<BR>
&gt; names when other IGOs are forced to fend for themselves with
<BR>
&gt; other business and trademark owners trying to protect their brand.
<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Given the work on potential modification to the UDRP <BR>
&gt; regarding IGOs, ICANN might wish to consider registering or
<BR>
&gt; unreserving those names at such time that a suitable IGO UDRP
<BR>
&gt; mechanism is available. Seeking to maintain a double standard
<BR>&gt; potentially subjects ICANN to attacks in other fora.<BR>&gt; <BR>
&gt; With regard to the reserved names of www, nic and whois.
<BR>
&gt; Although I have some concern regarding how these words are
<BR>
&gt; reserved as discussed on the call today, in the interest of
<BR>
&gt; practicality I will withdraw any concerns that I raised
<BR>&gt; today. I believe the most important aspect is allowing <BR>
&gt; registries to use these strings in an intuitive fashion to
<BR>
&gt; assist Internet users in finding the information that they
<BR>
&gt; want. Since that is possible with the current contractual
<BR>&gt; provisions, our time should be devoted toward other efforts.<BR>&gt; 
<BR>
&gt; Tamara with regard to the wording of the "common names", I
<BR>
&gt; believe a more suitable working title would be "commonly used
<BR>&gt; words and phrases."<BR>
&gt; Although most lay people would refer to these as generic
<BR>
&gt; names, generic has a distinct legal distinction that we
<BR>&gt; should try to avoid. <BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; Best regards,<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; 
Michael D. Palage<BR>&gt; <BR>&gt; </BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>