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

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

agree with Chuck on this.
Sophia


On 02/03/07, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  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. J
>
>
>
> 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.