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

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

> 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.
The reservation recommendations do not seem to have input of
IDN people and only derived from a few people e.g. Tina and Ram.


> 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.
Any deployment of IDNs must ensure that xn-- and other prefix-looking
strings in ASCII or otherwise, are not allowed to be registered per se.
So support of this recommendation should not be mis-interpreted
as a support for IDN deployment to go ahead without preventing
backdoor ASCII registrations of IDN labels in ACE.
One should not be registering ACE encodings as much as
one should not be registering in binary (in the theoretical
situation where a URL bar in a web browser can be made to
interpret binary represented in 0s and 1s).
In fact, any one purportedly registering IDN labels which look
like the ACE label should also be treated with suspicion
for attempting to pass off as an ACE label.
This is analogous to registering any domain name label
as a homographic or homoglyphic version to another pre-existing
domain name label in whatever language or script.

It should be recommended that the Working Group
take MORE action on this subset of names as it recognises
the importance of reserved names, and it does not have all of
the relevant information before it, and that any incomplete
reservation can equally be damaging to the IDN deployment
process as an overly cautious reservation.


> 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.
Regarding reserved names for other purposes  such as intellectual property
protection or well-known names protection or sensitive names e.g. religious
reasons, political reasons, moral reasons, etc. and should be dealt with
by the relevant constituencies as much as IDN decisions should be dealt
with by the appropriate Language/Script Constituencies that will
be impacted by the decisions.


Kind regards,
Sophia


On 01/03/07, Marilyn Cade <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>  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.