RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Reserved Names vs. Prohibited Names

["Michael D. Palage" <Michael@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Chuck,

I also agree with Edmon. With regard to geographic/geopolitical domain
names. If these names continue to receive special consideration, I think
"reserved" would be the best classification, as a country might want to
use the name (i.e. canada.info or germany.info) or it may elect not to
use the name. Simply prohibiting the use of the name does not make
sense.

Best regards,

Michael

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:38 AM
To: edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Reserved Names vs. Prohibited Names


Very interesting thoughts Edmon.  Using your two categories, prohibited
and reserved, where would you place each of the categories of names we
currently are working with?  If I understand your definitions correctly,
I would probably place them as follows:

ICANN & IANA related - Prohibited

Single Character - Prohibited   

Two Character - Reserved        

Tagged - Reserved       

NIC, Whois, www - Prohibited    

Geographic & Geopolitical - ?   

Third Level     3rd level - some prohibited & some reserved     

Other 2nd Level - some prohibited & some reserved

Controversial - ?

Does this type of categorization add value to our work?  I do believe
that being clear in our definition of reserved names is helpful.        


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." 
 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Edmon Chung
> Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 10:13 PM
> To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Reserved Names vs. Prohibited Names
> 
> Hi Everyone,
> 
> We have touched on the issue a few times, that is the
> different "types" of "reserved names".  The general 
> consideration was that there were 2 main types:
> 1. Reserved and NOT to be used (Marilyn has also mentioned 
> that as a subset there may be RFC "sanctioned" names as well) 
> 2. Reserved to be used under certain considerations
> 
> In my mind I think names in 1. Should NOT be called "reserved
> names" but Prohibited Names.  "Reserved Names" to me has the 
> connotation that the name is reserved for a particular 
> purpose, but not prohibited, i.e. it can be activated if 
> certain considerations are met.  (OR somewhat like a reserved 
> table at a restaurant...).
> 
> I think this terminology would work much better: Prohibited
> Names vs. Reserved Names.
> 
> And for Prohibited Names (or category 1 above), there really
> isn't much (here I am talking only about at the second or 
> third-level) if I read into the contracts and intents 
> correctly.  The only one I can think of are domains that 
> start or end with a hyphen.  And this falls somewhat into the 
> category which Marilyn has mentioned, and has not been 
> discussed by the WG.
> 
> It is possible to think of single character names as
> prohibited as well (though I think even for this we are 
> thinking of opening).  All other "Reserved Names" being 
> discussed in the WG so far however are correctly called 
> Reserved Names in my mind.  None of the categories are 
> intended to be Prohibited.  Even for names such as 
> "ICANN.TLD" I can imagine possible usage by ICANN itself, 
> 2-character domains as we have seen could be used where appropriate.
> 
> Wonder what others think...
> 
> Edmon
> 
> 
> 
>