RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Report for Other Names at the 2nd Level

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

Greg,
 
Please see my responses below.
 
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." 
 


________________________________

        From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
        Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 7:46 PM
        To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO RN WG
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Report for Other Names at the 2nd
Level
        
        
        I'm not sure "concern" is the right word.  If it never gets
allocated, it's reserved for all practical purposes, and should be
within the purview of our WG.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Why?
         
        If it's not de facto reserved, it should be allocated or made
available for registration within a reasonable period of time.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Why?
         
        I, for one, am not comfortable saying these are not reserved
names, if they function like reserved names.
        [Gomes, Chuck] Different categories of reserved names are
handled differently but in each case there is a reason and the reason
has some basis (e.g., confusion, IDN identification, technical
stability, etc. What would be the reason here?  Our comfort level
doesn't seem like a valid reason to me.
         
        Conversely, I am more comfortable saying these are different
from reserved names, if they act different from reserved names in the
most critical way (i.e., they are allocated).  Otherwise, we essentially
end up with a class of reserved names that avoid the technical
coordination and oversight of ICANN.
        [Gomes, Chuck] What technical coordination is needed with these?
That is what I am looking for.  I am not aware of any needed technical
coordination.  
         
        In short, if they function as reserved names, I think they quack
like ducks ("If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a
duck....")
        [Gomes, Chuck] We have a lot of different ducks.  Should they
all be treated the same? 
         

________________________________

        From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
        Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 1:34 PM
        To: Shatan, Gregory S.; GNSO RN WG
        Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Report for Other Names at the 2nd
Level
        
        
        I apologize for being very dense on this issue, but I am still
struggly what the concern is about plans for allocation or lack of such
plans.  What are you concerned about if the names are never allocated?
ICANN is not a regulator but rather a technical coordinator.  If I could
understand what the underlying fears are, it might help me understand.
         
        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." 
         


________________________________

                From: Shatan, Gregory S. [mailto:GShatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
                Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2007 12:28 PM
                To: Gomes, Chuck; GNSO RN WG
                Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] Report for Other Names at the
2nd Level
                
                
                As discussed on yesterday's call, please consider the
following friendly amendment to the this report, as follows, to be
placed at the beginning of section C.1:
                 
                These names differ from ICANN reserved names in that the
names are actually intended to be allocated by the Registries.
Therefore, the names arguably fall outside the remit of this particular
Working Group.  However, allocation plans for these Registries are, in
many cases, uncertain and have no timing requirements. At least one
registry (.travel) has indicated it has no current plans to allocate
these names.  Thus, it is quite possible that these names could remain
unallocated for extremely long periods of time, and become de facto
reserved names.  In order to avoid this result, registries should be
encouraged to have clear allocation plans with regard to these names,
including plans with regard to timing, with a goal to allocating these
names within a reasonable period of time.  It may also be preferable if
these names were set forth in an Appendix and considered during the
approval process for the for the TLD.  

                 

                Greg Shatan

                 

                

                Gregory S. Shatan 
                Partner 
                ReedSmithLLP 
                599 Lexington Avenue 
                New York, NY 10022 
                212.549.0275 (Phone) 
                917.816.6428 (Mobile) 
                212.521.5450 (Fax) 
                gshatan@xxxxxxxxxxxxx 
                www.reedsmith.com 

                        This e-mail is confidential and may well be
legally privileged.  If you have received it in error, you are on notice
of its status.  Please notify us immediately by reply e-mail and then
delete this message from your system.  Please do not copy it or use it
for any purposes, or disclose its contents to any other person.  To do
so could violate state and Federal privacy laws.  Thank you for your
cooperation.

                 


________________________________

                From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
[mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
                Sent: Monday, March 12, 2007 11:08 AM
                To: GNSO RN WG
                Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] Report for Other Names at the 2nd
Level
                
                
                Assuming that no later version of this report is sent to
the list before our meeting today, we will use this version to discuss
recommendations today.  Note that it appears that the full subgroup may
not have reached consensus on the recommendations but they will have
opportunity to participate in the discussion in our WG meeting.  Also,
note that the highlighted comments under the recommendations for each of
the three subcategories are my comments for discussion in our call
today.
                 
                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."