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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Mike, I am not sure why this list of names is 'suspect', though. I know you
raised questions, but remember that not everyone agreed with you. 

But to the larger point of how views and researched views from experts are
captured, I would assume that we would gather up the various points of view
and document them in a section of the report in brief fashion. I think that
was what was intended in the SoW and that would be one of Tim's tasks, as
the retained staff person. That would allow for majority views and minority
views to be documented. Am I right, Mr. Chair? 

The real challenge is to get all views identified and captured and not just
have a sub group limit itself to only consideration of one perspective or
two... and that seems to be the present work underway. Since the full WG
will need to read the sub group report and understand it and agree to it re
levels of support... 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Michael D. Palage
Sent: Monday, February 26, 2007 9:48 AM
To: 'Gomes, Chuck'; 'Marilyn Cade'; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Comments on ICANN/IANA Reserved Names Reports/and
other thoughts

Marilyn/Chuck:

Just to be clear, my objection to the ICANN/IANA Reserve Names Straw
Poll was the proposed REAFFIRMATION of this group in connection with a
suspect set of names. Now if this group decides to "punt" in Marilyn's
terms on this issue until ICANN staff can find the basis or a continued
justification for the reservation of this subset of names, fine.
However, I would like to know what mechanisms will be available for
members to submit statements into the record of our final report. Chuck
could you please provide some clarification on this issue?

Best regards,

Michael D. Palage

-----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
> 
> 
> 
>