RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt ICANN/IANA Reserved Names

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

It seems to me that we should at least make a recommendation regarding
what the contractual terms should be for reserving ICANN/IANA for the
initial round of new gTLDs in case any subsequent work is not done
before that round begins.  Otherwise, there will be a contractual void
on this issue.  One way of approaching this is to simply recommend that
ICANN staff/Board decide the status of this reserved names category
until such time as the GNSO recommends anything different.  Another way
would be to specifically recommend that the current requirement be
applied at all levels, including the top, until such time as the GNSO
recommends any changes.  If the names are not reserved and then it is
later decided to reserve them, they will be registered, thereby creating
a legacy problem.

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 Mike Rodenbaugh
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:24 AM
> To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt 
> ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
> 
> I suggest more direct language, along these lines:
> 
> Whereas, it appears self-evident that ICANN has reserved 
> these names in the interest of avoiding user confusion which 
> could result if parties unrelated to ICANN were to register them;
> 
> Whereas, it is obvious that such concerns are exponentially 
> more severe as to many other businesses, individuals and 
> organizations than as to ICANN; 
> 
> Whereas, to date, ICANN via its TLD policies has effectively 
> forced such businesses, individuals and organizations to 
> 'defensively register' such strings in order to protect their 
> interests from the effects of such confusion;
> 
> We recommend that ICANN's 'trademark strings' be treated 
> equally with other well-known 'trademark strings'.
> 
> We recommend that the PRO-WG consider and recommend 'reserved 
> name policy' and other mechanisms to protect ICANN, and all 
> other individuals, businesses and organizations from the 
> severe effects of abusive registrations.
> 
> 
> [Please note:  I left this part out...  Whereas, the special 
> treatment accorded to ICANN's 'trademark strings' may appear 
> to be ridiculous and offensive to many in the Community who 
> have long been effectively forced to pay for defensive registrations;]
> 
> 
> 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 Michael D. Palage
> Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 7:03 AM
> To: 'Reserved Names Working Group ICANN'
> Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt 
> ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
> 
> Hello All:
> 
> Notwithstanding my significant concerns about the reservation 
> of ICANN and IANA names, in the interest of consensus 
> building I offer the following alternate straw poll 
> recommendation below for consideration. 
> 
> If this straw language was included I would support. 
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Michael D. Palage
> 
> 
> Proposed Alt Straw Poll:
> 
> 
> Whereas, ICANN is currently undertaking an investigation into 
> the historical basis upon which this group of names have been 
> reserved;
> 
> Whereas, ICANN staff has noted that this process will take 
> some time, and it is unlikely that this compilation of 
> information will be available prior to the conclusion of this 
> Working Group's aggressive time table;
> 
> Whereas,  the Working Group acknowledges the importance of 
> obtaining this information so it can make a determination if 
> the original justification for these reservations still 
> exist, and that such additional works needs to be completed 
> prior to the commencement of the next TLD RFP round; 
> 
> It is therefore recommended that the Working Group take no 
> action on this subset of names as it does not have all of the 
> relevant information before it.  
> 
> 
> 
> 
>