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

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

I also suggest that we not write recommendations as formal motions.
 
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." 
 


________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Marilyn Cade
        Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 12:57 PM
        To: 'Tim Ruiz'; 'Mike Rodenbaugh'
        Cc: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt
ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
        
        

        I will make two comments: One regarding Palage's draft
contribution, where I suggest simplified edits and two a two part
comment related to Rodenbaugh's contribution, which I do not support,
but raise a question about why other phrases, relied on for
routing/addressing of email/applications re not also added to the
reserved status on another subgroup.

         

         

         

         

        First, I would suggest that instead of writing
resolutions/wheras clauses,  we all stick to the format of the present
report structure. :-)

         

        Mike Palage, when I read your contribution, it seems to me to be
very simple to state:  I've given it a try below.

         

        The Sub Group, based on advice from ICANN staff and other
technical experts, has determined that 

        a complete analysis of the historical genesis of this
reservation may take some time. Other experts have

        suggested support for continuing the status of reserving these
names. In order to make any recommendation to change the status of any
of the ICANN and IANA names, extensive work would be required. 

         

        Recommendation: 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. 

         

         

        On the topic of Mike Rodenbaugh's suggestion that this WG
consider adding trademarks into a new reserved name category, I suggest
that actually the protective approaches for trademarks is being
developed in the PRO WG, is it  not? I know that everyone was not around
in the preICANN and fast track study that WIPO did, that resulted in the
UDRP, but many suggested a white list for famous and well known brands
that no registry could register. That did not win broad support from
anyone in the end, and I don't see it as feasible today. I hope that the
PRO WG will be able to provide some suggestions on what dispute
mechanisms should exist at the top level, consistent with the present
PDP 05 recommendation. I can't see how to get support for putting all
trademarks, or all domain names into a 'new reserved category'. I do
support maintaining the names that are relevant to ICANN and IANA.

         

        I actually wonder if http and html should not be added to the
reserved category and wonder why that isn't being discussed in the .nic,
.www, document. 

        Best Regards,

         

        Marilyn Cade

         

         

        
________________________________


        From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Tim Ruiz
        Sent: Thursday, March 01, 2007 11:54 AM
        To: Mike Rodenbaugh
        Cc: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt
ICANN/IANA Reserved Names

         

        I would likely support Mike's alternate language (it sticks to
the facts). I would not support Mike's below. No offense Mike, I just
think your version is addressing a particular groups special interests. 
        
        Tim 

                -------- Original Message --------
                Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt
ICANN/IANA
                Reserved Names
                From: "Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
                Date: Thu, March 01, 2007 10:24 am
                To: <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>
                
                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.