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

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

Good point Tim.

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: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 8:59 AM
> To: Gomes, Chuck
> Cc: edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Reserved Names vs. Prohibited Names
> 
> > 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
>