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

["Marilyn Cade" <marilynscade@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Let me add in some thinking through what this would look like FROM MY
PERSPECTIVE ONLY.

I think that we are finding that treatment of strings can be different at
the top and second level. But also, that the idea of a business model with a
set of premium names may vary from registry to registry, and we need to
reach agreement on whether that is a unique category, so we don't want to
use the term 'reserved' names, but a special category. The examples of names
reserved by .info and .biz for example include names not to be used, and not
to be released. While .mobi had a business plan that has of course 'reserved
names, but a special category of 'yet to be released and to be allocated in
a special way, as agreed via the contract registry with ICANN. 



                                CHUCK'S RATINGS         MARILYN'S STRAW
DRAFT
                                                                Top Level
2nd Level
ICANN & IANA related - Prohibited                       Prohibited
Prohibited                      X

Single Character - Prohibited                           Prohibited
Reserved 

Two Character - Reserved                                Prohibited
Reserved

Tagged - Reserved                                               Prohibited
Prohibited

NIC, Whois, www - Prohibited                            Prohibited
Prohibited

Geographic & Geopolitical - ?                           Prohibited
Reserved

Third Level     3rd level - some prohibited          Mix
Mix
 & some reserved        

Other 2nd Level - some prohibited & some 
Reserved                                                       Mix
Mix

Controversial - ?                                                under
development... 

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
> 
> 
> 
>