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

["Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>]

Resending..I hope the formating/color coding is better!
Sophia

On 04/03/07, Sophia B <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> If I understand you correctly Sophia, I don't agree. Iintellectual
> property protection, well-known names protection, sensitive names, etc.
> are issues that affect the entire community. Resolution of such issues
> should not be done in a vacuum within any particular constituency.
>
> Tim,
>
> In other words, general / universal issues e.g. IP protection, well-known
> names
> protectionsensitive names can be handled generally, and it should be for
> convenience and for consistency, but language/script specific issues and
> exceptions must have a mechanism for detecting them, identifying them as
> non-universal issues, that have to be dealt with by those who
> understand what they are, and not by a universalist guy sitting
> in an office thousands of miles away, having no legitimacy or
> recognition by the very peoples who will be impacted by his/her
> policy decisions.
>
> Therefore, there must be a process for ICANN to deal with
> policies relating to such subgroups.
>
> The simplest process of such contextualisation or localisation
> of general policies is for when IDNs are being issued,
> for a special Language Commitee to be selected/elected of people from that
> community and entrusted to modifying general policy to fit, and
> selecting the appropriate IDNs for implementation.
> And in the final outcome, all these should be geographically
> distributed according to population distribution at the end of the day, in
> fulfilment
> of GAC recommendations for equity purposes and not captured by
> a small group of business people.



>   In fact, while I *might* agree that technical decisions regarding IDNs
> > > could be resolved within specific constituent groups that deal with
> > > such matters, I definitely would not agree that all decisions
> > > regarding
> > > IDNs should be dealt with that way. There are serious public policy
> > > issues regarding IDNs that need broad community input to resolve
> > >
> >
> >
>
> I do not agree these matters are that to be resolved by a narrow
> 'Constituency' group like the traditional ICANN setting either,
>
> but to butters my point above, when a language is selected for IDN ...a
> special
> Language Commitee should be selected/elected of people from that community
(geographycally distributed according to population
> distribution) and this Committee should be entrusted with starting with
> general ICANN policy and modifying for the needs of that
> community/language and then selecting the winning TLD.  It would not
> be the job of the Language constituency - which if it
> exists only helps put in input regarding languages in general, just like
> other constituencies giving feedback from their point of views  - legal,
> business etc.
>
>
> On 03/03/07, Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > If I understand you correctly Sophia, I don't agree. Iintellectual
> > property protection, well-known names protection, sensitive names, etc.
> > are issues that affect the entire community. Resolution of such issues
> > should not be done in a vacuum within any particular constituency.
> >
> > In fact, while I *might* agree that technical decisions regarding IDNs
> > could be resolved within specific constituent groups that deal with
> > such matters, I definately would not agree that all decisions regarding
> > IDNs should be dealt with that way. There are serious public policy
> > issues regarding IDNs that need broad community input to resolve.
> >
> > Or have I misunderstood your intent?
> >
> >
> > Tim
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt ICANN/IANA
> > Reserved Names
> > From: "Sophia B" < sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
> > Date: Sat, March 03, 2007 11:25 am
> > To: "Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Cc: "Tim Ruiz" < tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>, "Mike Rodenbaugh"
> > <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>, gnso-rn-wg@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.
> >
> >
> >