RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>
If then there is no *policy* regarding the reservation of these strings,
then shouldn't there be a burden of proof for any recommendation that would be 
made to create one? Perhaps it's a matter separating the *policy 
recommendation* regarding reserved names of this type going forward for new 
gTLDs from any recommendations on handling&nbsp;the *contractual* provisions 
that exist in regards to these names for existing registries.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><BR><BR>Tim <BR></div>
<div   name="wmMessageComp"><BR><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="PADDING-LEFT: 8px; MARGIN-LEFT: 8px; BORDER-LEFT: blue 2px 
solid" webmail="1">-------- Original Message --------<BR>Subject: RE: 
[gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart<BR>From: "Ray Fassett" 
&lt;ray@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, May 03, 2007 12:04 pm<BR>To: "'Tim Ruiz'" 
&lt;tim@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Cc: &lt;gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR><BR>
<STYLE>
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage v\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage o\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage w\:*   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage .shape   {behavior:url(#default#VML);}

</STYLE>
<o:SmartTagType name="PersonName" 
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"></o:SmartTagType>
<STYLE>
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage st1\:*  {behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }

</STYLE>

<STYLE>
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage /* Font Definitions */ @font-face   
{font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp 
#wmMessage li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.MsoNormal   {margin:0in; 
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman";}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle18   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle19   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle20   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:Arial; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle21   {mso-style-type:personal-reply; 
font-family:Arial; color:navy;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @page Section1   {size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 
1.25in 1.0in 1.25in;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.Section1   {page:Section1;}

</STYLE>

<DIV class=Section1>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
These are good questions, Tim.&nbsp; Let me try to respond prior to our
call.&nbsp; First, I think it is important to appreciate that the reservation 
of gTLD strings is a contractual condition and not a policy.&nbsp; PDP 05 is a 
policy setting process.&nbsp; If the sub-group is to make a recommendation (in 
theory to PDP 05) to create &ldquo;new policy&rdquo; that is to change the 
status quo for gTLD reserved names, then there needs to be evidence to support 
its doing so (strong support could work in lieu of empirical evidence).&nbsp; 
Second, the reservation of gTLD strings is an existing contractual condition, 
which is different than your parallel examples of the IP community and 
ISP&rsquo;s (or registrar names).&nbsp; If an existing contractual condition is 
going to be changed as a recommendation from the sub-group&rsquo;s work, then 
there is a burden for which to do so (more on this below).&nbsp; Conversely, if 
a new reserved category is desired to be created (such as for IP or ISP 
interests or registrar names), then there is a burden to achie!
 ve for which to do so (for example, see Controversial Names category).&nbsp; 
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
The initial work of the gTLD reserved names category resulted in the
need for a 30 day extension for the reason that conflicting opinions resulted 
from the initial work.&nbsp; As the chair of this subgroup, I examined the 
initial findings and took the approach of:&nbsp; Can gTLD strings be unreserved 
for registration? vs. should gTLD strings continue to be reserved from 
registration?&nbsp; From the initial work, including the conflicting opinions, 
there appeared reasonably strong support to the idea that gTLD strings can be 
unreserved as matter of contract.&nbsp; There really has not been a dissenting 
opinion to this notion.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Comments obtained from within the RyC members clearly favor the
preservation of this reserved names category.&nbsp; The sub group must accept 
this as expert advice, objectively while also examining the motivations for 
such advice.&nbsp; Some individual members of the registrar constituency 
offered the same opinion as RyC members, and for the same reasons i.e. 
potential user confusion.&nbsp; Is there evidence of user confusion?&nbsp; I 
don&rsquo;t know of a study that indicates that there is, just as there is not 
a study that indicates that there is not.&nbsp; Objectively, the burden falls 
on the latter, not the former, because the reservation of gTLD names is an 
existing condition, not one looking to be created or added new.&nbsp; While 
opinions may arise that all gTLD strings should simply be unreserved for new 
TLD&rsquo;s, the burden was not achieved for this recommendation by the 
sub-group.&nbsp; What I believe has been achieved is that gTLD names can be 
unreserved.&nbsp; Given this is true, we had to look at the reason &ndash; or 
pla!
 ce &ndash; ICANN was taking to restrict &ndash; by contract &ndash; the 
registration of gTLD strings.&nbsp; Certainly a technical security and 
stability issue would suffice.&nbsp; Examining this question found that a 
recent opinion by the RSTEP stated that there is not, in its view, a security 
and stability issue to TLD.TLD.&nbsp; Objectively then, why is ICANN in the 
middle of this reserved names category as a contractual condition and, more 
importantly, should ICANN continue to be for new TLD&rsquo;s?&nbsp; Clearly 
evidence indicates ICANN should not be.&nbsp; With this said, ICANN Core Value 
3 is applicable: &nbsp;&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
To the extent feasible and appropriate, delegating coordination
functions to or recognizing the policy role of other responsible entities that 
reflect the interests of affected parties.</SPAN></FONT><FONT face=Arial 
color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
My own examination of the findings led me to 2 clear, objective
conclusions: 1) There is strong support that gTLD strings can be unreserved and 
2) ICANN should not be contractually binding itself as the party to require 
approval from.&nbsp; The recommendation accomplishes these 2 conclusions: 1) 
enables the release of gTLD strings for registration as a matter of contract 
(which today is not the case) and 2) enables release in a manner that does not 
require ICANN&rsquo;s approval (as it does 
today).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
While I have shared the above thinking with the 2 members of this
sub-group (Edmon Chung and Patrick Jones), we are still in discussion ourselves 
and what is stated above is in my own words.&nbsp; I am glad you asked the 
questions as discussion and dialogue is what this is 
about.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">Ray<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<div><FONT face=Arial color=navy size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: 
navy; FONT-FAMILY: Arial"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><FONT face="Times 
New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
<HR tabIndex=-1 align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></FONT></DIV>
<div><B><FONT face=Tahoma size=2><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold; FONT-SIZE: 
10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma">From:</SPAN></FONT></B><FONT face=Tahoma 
size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Tahoma"> Tim Ruiz 
[mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] <BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: 
bold">Sent:</SPAN></B> Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:29 AM<BR><B><SPAN 
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">To:</SPAN></B> Ray Fassett<BR><B><SPAN 
style="FONT-WEIGHT: bold">Cc:</SPAN></B> <st1:PersonName 
w:st="on">gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName><BR><B><SPAN style="FONT-WEIGHT: 
bold">Subject:</SPAN></B> RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names 
Chart</SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
If this is going to be the recommendation, then I would like to add to
that the business names of then existing Accredited Registrars. And I am sure 
that the IP community would then like to add the well known names of other 
Internet services providers (search engines, ISPs, etc., 
etc.).<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
I cannot imagine a registry giving a competitor permission to register
the equivalent of its gTLD string at the second level. In fact, I think 
investigation of antitrust and other anti-competitive laws and regulations 
should be done before we consdier making such a 
recommendation.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">
What is&nbsp;the is actual evidence&nbsp;of potential harm to justify
this recommendation, or the existing policy regarding these reservations? What 
is the justification to continue to expand the existing imbalance regarding the 
registrations of such names? All this does is&nbsp;make an ever growing number 
of valuable and useful generic strings unavailable to the general public, and 
assumes bad intentions on the part of those who may like to use 
them.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt">&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt"><BR>Tim 
<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div></DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">
<div><FONT face="Times New Roman" size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 
12pt"><BR><BR><BR><o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></div>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><FONT face="Times New Roman" 
size=3><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 12pt">-------- Original Message 
--------<BR>Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart<BR>From: "Ray 
Fassett" &lt;<st1:PersonName 
w:st="on">ray@xxxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName>&gt;<BR>Date: Wed, May 02, 2007 7:47 
pm<BR>To: &lt;<st1:PersonName 
w:st="on">gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName>&gt;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></FONT></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: Arial">
Attached find the gTLD Reserved Names Chart outlining the sub group
recommendation for discussion on 
Thursday.<u1:p></u1:p></SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial"><u1:p>&nbsp;</u1:p></SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><FONT face=Arial size=2><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
Arial">Ray 
Fassett<u1:p></u1:p></SPAN></FONT><o:p></o:p></div></DIV></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>