[gnso-rn-wg] IANA names
Chuck, Sorry for delay in providing more here, I am not clear exactly what add'l background you feel is desirable but I figure the Appendix C must provide it. So the below draft email I submit to the WG for discussion today if desired... . Dear [ICANN/IANA and various orgs...]: As part of the input into its Policy Development Process regarding new gTLDs, the GNSO has formed a Working Group to examine current name reservations in registry operator agreements, and to recommend whether those reservations should be continued, modified or discontinued. The Registry Agreements negotiated by ICANN state that "the following names shall be reserved at the second level and at all other levels within the TLD at which Registry Operator makes registrations". The attached interim report from the WG provides background and a table of the names currently reserved to IANA and ICANN organizations. The Working Group has stated thus far: The role of the reserved names held by IANA and ICANN has been to maintain for those organizations the exclusive rights to the names of ICANN (icann), its bodies (aso, ccnso, pso, etc.) or essential related functions (internic) of the two organizations. Do you believe that names on the attached table -- which correspond or relate to your organization -- should continue to be reserved at all levels in all current and future gTLDs? If yes, please state the reasons why you believe such exclusive rights should be reserved in all gTLDs, and describe how you have used or may intend to use these domains in the 16 gTLDs, and in any other TLDs to date. If no, please state which name reservations need not continue, or if you believe the reservation should be modified (i.e. DNSO should be GNSO) then please state this. Please provide the name of the person completing this questionnaire, and any additional comments or questions that you or your organization may have for the WG. Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:28 PM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Liz Williams; edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension Mike, It would be helpful for Liz if you drafted a more complete questionaire for her to send out including providing some background for the request. Some suggestions for questions to ask were given in today's call. 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: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Wednesday, April 18, 2007 2:26 PM To: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Williams; edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension Copying in Edmon, pls lmk any comments... _____ From: Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 8:08 AM To: Gomes, Chuck; Liz Williams Subject: RE: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension Good with me, thanks Chuck. I am glad this issue is not falling by the wayside or getting sunsetted, as you know I think it is significant to an important broader debate. I will be glad to be on this subgroup as well, if you like. I realize the work may not get done, but at least it will continue. We should soon ask each of the entities any reasons to keep their corresponding strings reserved. I figure there may be technical or operational reasons cited by some (testing, research, etc.), though even those reasons would likely plainly apply to large brand owners, network operators, service providers, etc. I've even begun suggested wording for the request: As part of the input into its policy development process regarding new gTLDs, the GNSO has formed a Working Group to examine current name reservations in registry operator agreements, and recommend whether those reservations should be modified. The following names are currently reserved in all TLDs with respect to your organization, [quote App. section]. The Working Group has stated: The role of the reserved names held by IANA and ICANN has been to maintain for those organizations the exclusive rights to the names of ICANN (icann), its bodies (aso, ccnso, pso, etc.) or essential related functions (internic) of the two organizations. Do you believe each of [relevant subset of names] should continue to be reserved in all gTLDs? If yes, please state the reasons why you believe such exclusive rights should be reserved in all gTLDs, and describe how you have used or may intend to use these domains in the 16 gTLDs, and in any other TLDs to date. I'm also curious to know how the ccTLDs handle these names. Is it true they don't have any sort of standard Appendix? The WG report so far has no info on that so can we ask Staff (or ccNSO?) whether or which of these names are reserved in which ccTLDs (or just do a survey of top 20)? If I really wanted to open a can of worms, I'd ask everyone whether they thought GAC or any other names should also be reserved ;-) Mike Rodenbaugh Sr. Legal Director Yahoo! Inc. NOTICE: This communication is confidential and may be protected by attorney-client and/or work product privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this communication and any attachments. _____ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@xxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:18 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh; Liz Williams Subject: Proposed Revisions of the RN-WG SoW for 30-day extension Importance: High Mike/Liz, Before I send the revised SoW for the 30-day extension of the RN-WG to the Council list and to the RN-WG list, I would appreciate your review and comment of the changes I made. Note that they are highlighted in Section 1 under Tasks regarding Recommendations. 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." Attachment:
Appendix C.doc
|