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

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

Sophia,
 
Are your recommendations from the IDN-WG or are they personal
recommendations?  You are perfectly welcome to submit personal
recommendations but it is important that you are clear when you do so to
make sure that the RN-WG members do not assume your statements represent
IDN-WG positions because they view you as the liaison to that group.
 
Based on your statement, it appears that you do not view Ram and Tina as
experts, is that correct?  Who would you suggest as IDN experts who are
recognized as such by the full community?
 
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 Sophia B
        Sent: Saturday, March 03, 2007 12:26 PM
        To: Marilyn Cade
        Cc: Tim Ruiz; Mike Rodenbaugh; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
        Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt
ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
        
        
         
        > 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. :-)

        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
<mailto: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.