RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Comments on ICANN/IANA Reserved Names Reports/and other thoughts

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

Agreed.

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: Marilyn Cade [mailto:marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:36 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Comments on ICANN/IANA Reserved 
> Names Reports/and other thoughts
> 
> I agree. But there may be a couple. I would assume that the 
> work of the sub group/WG would then form part of the basis of 
> an issues report. 
> 
> Returning to the Statement of Work:  As I recall the 
> development of the SoW, that is only one of the reasons that 
> we need the well documented, neutral, and inclusive sub group 
> reports that were set up in the Statement of Work.
> The other side of that story is that when the WG report is 
> posted for public comment, the more thorough the work, the 
> more likely that a recommendation can be considered 
> thoroughly examined and the speedier the rest of the work, if any. 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:10 AM
> To: Marilyn Cade; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Comments on ICANN/IANA Reserved 
> Names Reports/and other thoughts
> 
> Thanks Marilyn for the thoughts.  I would add one thought of 
> mine to yours.  It may be that there are one or two reserved 
> names categories that ultimately may need a full PDP process. 
>  It would ultimately be the Council to decide that but the 
> RN-WG could provide some recommendations in that regard if it 
> seemed appropriate.  I personally think we should minimize 
> consideration of full-blown PDPs as much as possible, but in 
> some cases they might be unavoidable.
> 
> 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 Marilyn Cade
> > Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 8:17 AM
> > To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Comments on ICANN/IANA Reserved Names 
> > Reports/and other thoughts
> > 
> > 
> > I have been thinking more about what pragmatic and 
> practical means as 
> > it comes to our work in the TF, and it seems to me that we might 
> > benefit from reviewing our statement of work again, as we consider, 
> > within each of our sub groups, what we can get done by Lisbon, and 
> > what needs a longer process, and what the options for the longer 
> > process is. Today, Chuck reminded all of us that we need to think 
> > about how we 'recommend' that further work that isn't completed by 
> > Lisbon happens for 'our' sub group topic.
> > 
> > I think we can also consider that some names may need to remain in 
> > 'reserved status' while a longer process is thought about, 
> IF indeed 
> > the Council ultimately decides to consider significant 
> change in the 
> > existing reserved names process.
> > 
> > For example, taking one of the words Mike Palage mentioned 
> -- ISTF -- 
> > if it isn't simple to agree on what to unreserve, it can be left on 
> > the reserved string while a longer process is undertaken to 
> consider 
> > individually such names and then the name can be released without 
> > prejudice to all new gTLDs.
> > 
> > I'm more concerned about getting the broad and general principles 
> > right than spending a lot of time on a single word, since I 
> think that 
> > we have yet to fully discuss what the implications are to how we 
> > treat, for example, example in IDNs. OR any other similar 'general 
> > operational' word string...
> > and I am expecting a busy time of conf. calls, consultations and 
> > dialogues in the next few weeks..
> > 
> > I was just wondering how others would view thinking about a general 
> > approach for dealing with areas where there won't be or it 
> is going to 
> > be hard to get to consensus at the WG level on a change -- punting 
> > with a plan to revisit isn't a bad idea in order to free up time to 
> > 'pick the low hanging fruit'.
> > 
> > Marilyn Cade
> > 
> > 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of michael@xxxxxxxxxx
> > Sent: Friday, February 23, 2007 2:35 PM
> > To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> > Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Comments on ICANN/IANA Reserved Names Reports
> > 
> > Hello All:
> > 
> > Although I intend to participate on tomorrow's call via telephone, 
> > provided that my red eye flight from LA is not delayed, I wanted to 
> > provide the following comments in connection with the ICANN/IANA 
> > Reserved Names subgroup.
> > 
> > While I appreciate the deference that we should provide 
> ICANN staff as 
> > they juggle many responsibilities in a less than ideal 
> environment, I 
> > must respectfully disagree with the statement of ICANN 
> staff regarding 
> > their position that these names should continue to be reserved. The 
> > basis for my concerns are set forth below.
> > 
> > First, given that the current ICANN staff does not have 
> access to the 
> > documentation that provides the basis for this original 
> reservation, I 
> > question the prudence for this Working Group to 
> affirmatively continue 
> > a reservation in which we do not have the full set of facts 
> before us.
> > The legitimacy of the output from this working group must 
> be based on 
> > documented fact. If ICANN is unable to locate the 
> documentation that 
> > formed the basis of the original reservation, ICANN should be 
> > requested to provide a basis for the continued reservation. 
> I submit 
> > that merely preserving the status quo is unacceptable given the 
> > potential dangerous precedent that might be set as elaborated below.
> > 
> > To illustrate the potential arbitrary and capricious nature of this 
> > original list of reservations. consider the reservation of 
> the string 
> > ISTF. As someone that has participated in ICANN since shortly after 
> > its creation, I was at a total loss of words for what this string 
> > represented.
> > After some Google searching I believe I found that this 
> string appears 
> > to be an acronym for the "Internet Societal Task Force."
> > Now what I found somewhat surprising was the fact that despite ISOC 
> > being the registrant of the ISTF.ORG domain name, it appears that 
> > domain name was not resolving. ISOC instead chose to use the ISTF 
> > string as a third level domain name istf.isoc.org.
> > 
> > Now if ICANN is unable to locate the original documentation 
> associated 
> > with this reservation, I believe that any continued 
> reservation would 
> > need to be based on an actual operational/security/stability need.
> > Questions that ICANN should need to answer include have any of the 
> > ISTF second level domains current used in other gTLDs (e.g. 
> ISTF.COM 
> > (domain name currently for sale) and ISTF.NET (parked page)) caused 
> > any operational issues. Has ICANN contacted ISOC to ask if 
> they would 
> > like a continued reservation of this term. If ISOC requests the 
> > continued reservation of this term could ISOC provide any 
> evidence of 
> > harm in connection with the use of ISTF.COM or ISTF.NET?
> > 
> > Now another consideration that must be taken into account 
> is Paragraph
> > 34 of the original WIPO Domain Name report that states 
> "[t]he goal of 
> > this WIPO Process is not to create new rights of intellectual 
> > property, nor to accord greater protection to intellectual 
> property in 
> > cyberspace than that which exists elsewhere.  Rather, the 
> goal is to 
> > give proper and adequate expression to the existing, multilaterally 
> > agreed standards of intellectual property protection in the 
> context of 
> > the new, multijurisdictional and vitally important medium of the 
> > Internet and the DNS that is responsible for directing 
> traffic on the 
> > Internet."
> > 
> > ISTF is currently a nationally registered trademark within 
> the United 
> > Kingdom, see 
> > http://www.patent.gov.uk/tm/t-find/t-find-number?detailsreques
> ted=C&trademar
> > k=2371647.
> > By reserving the string ISTF from registration negatively 
> impairs the 
> > rights of trademark owners to register their trademark as a second 
> > level domain. Although trademark owners do not have an 
> absolute right 
> > to register their trademark as a domain name, where ICANN 
> is going to 
> > affirmative reserve and deny a trademark owner this right 
> they must do 
> > so on clearly documented evidence, not merely based upon 
> > unsubstantiated recollections.
> > 
> > I could continue with further examples but need to turn my 
> attention 
> > back to the geographic reservation subgroup. I hope that these 
> > concrete examples demonstrate the shortsightedness of affirmatively 
> > approving these reservations without a proper record before us. I 
> > think we need to take a pause and evaluate the implications of the 
> > proposed straw poll that has been advanced to this group.
> > 
> > Best regards,
> > 
> > Michael D. Palage
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
>