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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> being clear in our definition of reserved names is helpful

Agreed. But I think we get there by focusing on building consensus on
recommended *treatment* of the various existing categories. Then
suggesting *labels* for the categories would come easier. 

Tim 
 

 -------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Reserved Names vs. Prohibited Names
From: "Gomes, Chuck" <cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, March 06, 2007 7:38 am
To: <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

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
> 
> 
> 
>