<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
- To: "Sophia B" <sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
- From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Mar 2007 09:45:41 -0500
Thanks for the questions and clarifications Sophia. Please see my
responses below.
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: Sophia B [mailto:sophiabekele@xxxxxxxxx]
Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 1:54 AM
To: Gomes, Chuck
Cc: Marilyn Cade; Tim Ruiz; Mike Rodenbaugh;
gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: Re: [gnso-rn-wg] Alternate Straw Poll Language wrt
ICANN/IANA Reserved Names
Dear Chuck,
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.
That was a good clarification Chuck, that particular
recommendation was my view. However, there must be a way to TAG my
views as either. I would like to know how it was done in the past.
One possible way is to document the views of the IDN WG on the outcome
of the RN-WG report, on a report that Ram has asked me to present. The
other way is to tag myself with a 'personal view', when I make my
recommendations/comments. In the case of the RN-WG report, you can
present me with the opportunity to present the views of the IDN WG,
which I can share with your group and for you to consider in your final
reports.
[Gomes, Chuck] Your suggestions here for differentiating between
IDN WG and personal comments seem fine. That is all I was suggesting.
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 area recognized as such by the full community
?
On the contrary, I do recognize Ram and Tina, including Cary as
experts. I hope my statement did not give that impression I did not.
My comment was to more of a pause, on how we make recommendations on
what impacts the whole global village, based on 'few experts" picked by
I am not sure who?.
[Gomes, Chuck] They were picked by me. If I thought that we
would get substantially different answers from other IDN experts
regarding reserved name requirements, I would have suggested more or
different experts. As I already asked, please feel free to suggest any
other experts who are recognized as such by the full community.
Also, if any of the recommendations have not been conveyed to
the supposing "IDN WG", (which has now become my job as a liaison); and
that which we attempted to put together with the intention to involve
larger "language community" tought not fully successful, other than the
IDN experts outside of RAM,TINA and Cary, which are the 'usual
suspects', not to be rude, I am afraid we risk the legitimacy issue,
which will haunt us for the long haul.
[Gomes, Chuck] Not sure what your concern is here. Our goal is
to be fully open in communication of issues.
Therefore, to further clarify, I do recognize RAM and Tina as
experts, but given for eg. that the final Tagged Name report came out
WITHOUT the recognition of ASCII registrations of IDN labels in ACE
encodings (a simple miss, an IDN expert would say) indicated we need
MORE people whose mindset is IDN-centric, particularly since IDN is just
like (Africa), not a sinlge Country but rather 50 plus
countries/cultures, not one language, but rather hundred of languages
that would naturally require more than a handful of IDN experts.
[Gomes, Chuck] We are trying to balance idealism and pragmatism
as has been said several times in the RN-WG. We all would like to be
idealistic and take as much time as needed to be extremely thorough in
outreach, but if we do that, I guarantee you that will not meet the
needs of IDN users for years to come. At the same time, there will be
opportunity for input from any who are interested going forward. The
RN-WG is not making policy but rather doing an overview of reserved
names requirements and making some recommendations for how to proceed
with the introduction of new gTLDs regarding reserved name requirements.
Our recommendations will be given to the Council and the New gTLD PDP
committee for further action and comment. I suggest you reread the SoW
for the RN-WG. We were given a deadline of March 16.
In this regard, yes, I appreciate you asking, and I can consult
with my contacts in the IDN community quickly to suggest ADDITIONAL
expert/experts to assist; people who are recognized by the full
community, hopefully to get involved at this capacity.
[Gomes, Chuck] Note our dealine: March 16 for delivery of a
final report. It may be that we will need to have the Council contact
any additional experts unless the Council extends the work of the RN-WG.
I hope this helps to clarify my points.
Kind regards,
Sophia
On 04/03/07, Gomes, Chuck <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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 <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.
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|