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

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

Thanks Marilyn.  It's helpful to compare thoughts.  Here's why I said
'reserved' for 2-character and tagged:

The reservation requirement for 2-character provides a provision for
registration of those names at the 2nd level.  The reservation
requirement for tagged names allows for use of the xn-- prefix if the
ICANN guidelines are followed.

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 Marilyn Cade
> Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:15 AM
> To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
> Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Reserved Names vs. Prohibited Names
> 
> 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
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> 
> 
>