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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Ray, I suppose you were mentioning me in your note earlier :-)

 

Hi Tim,

 

When we had the discussion within the subgroup I believe the point was that all 
registries currently have that restriction.  In fact including .COM.  The 
current arrangement is as follows (taken from the current .COM contract):

 

Registration Restrictions.  Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register 
any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings attached as 
Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at  
http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt for initial (i.e., other than 
renewal) registration at the second level within the TLD.

 

What it meant is that domains that are already allocated will be allowed to 
continue to renew, but if they are deleted they will be reserved thereupon.

 

The proposal was to maintain the "status quo" as mentioned and existing in the 
contracts, and to allow the release of the names without requiring the change.

 

My suggestion is actually that registries should give consent to the release of 
a name, for which consent must not be unreasonably withheld.  That I think 
should be sufficient to address the anti-competitive issue, without having to 
make it overly cumbersome for anyone.  By saying that it should not be 
unreasonably withheld, we eliminate the issue of good faith release, and stop 
the potential bad faith registrations (e.g. one used specifically to confuse 
others that they are the registry of the name... imagine say a TLD called 
".headquarters" and someone puts up a website on "nic.jobs.headquarters" 
confusing people that they are the authority for .jobs and offering 
registrations.  I think it will possibly disruptive to Ray).  Notice on the 
other hand, is simply served to ICANN and archived and should not add to burden 
of ICANN nor become unmanageable.

 

The point I think I want to make is that, there is some merits and some 
concerns about completely changing the status quo, and this is a solution we 
felt addresses the direction of the release of these names without excessive 
administrative process and in an equitable manner.

 

Edmon

 

 

PS. To preserve the new note sent in by Ray on this thread, I have changed the 
subject for this simple note.

PPS. Apologies for not being able to join the meeting today.

 

 

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 1:04 AM
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: 'Patrick Jones'; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

Ray, that argument goes both ways. What is the rationale for maintaining the 
status quo? In fact, there is no status quo. This requirement does not affect 
.com, larger than all other gTLDs combined. Evidence needs to be presented to 
justify this requirement. I don't believe there is any.

 

However, the fact that these registrations exist in .com and the history we 
have to date regarding them IS evidence that there is no apparent adverse 
affect. And the fact that EmployMedia, NeuLevel, Afilias, Tralliance, and so on 
saw no problem applying for strings, and getting those strings approved, that 
were in current use at the second level for .com IS evidence as well.

 

Bottom line, the evidence that does exist supports removing the requirement. 
There is no evidence that maintaining it and creating further burden on ICANN, 
prospective registrants, and subsequent gTLD applicants makes any kind of sense 
whatsoever.



Tim 






-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart
From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, May 03, 2007 11:49 am
To: "'Patrick Jones'" <patrick.jones@xxxxxxxxx>, <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Patrick, as you know, another member of our own 3 person sub-group has 
opinioned just the opposite - and it’s not me J   Opinions are great and 
welcome and important, but when there are conflicting opinions – whether in or 
outside the sub-group (really does not matter) – evidence needs to be presented 
so that an objective conclusion can be reached.  And, we have to appreciate 
that the status quo is a certain way right now (i.e. a managed list).  So, if 
the opinion is to change the status quo, it (in my view) is going to have to 
require more than just opinion.  It’s a good point you are making and thank you 
for mentioning it.

 

Ray

 

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Patrick Jones
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:36 AM
To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

We should discuss this in the call today. I am still concerned that leaving the 
requirement (to reserve gTLD strings at the second level) in its present form 
will become very difficult to manage as new gTLDs are added in the future. 

 

Patrick

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Tim Ruiz
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 8:29 AM
To: Ray Fassett
Cc: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

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.).

 

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.

 

What is the is actual evidence 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 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.

 


Tim 

 

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart
From: "Ray Fassett" <ray@xxxxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, May 02, 2007 7:47 pm
To: <gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx>

Attached find the gTLD Reserved Names Chart outlining the sub group 
recommendation for discussion on Thursday.

 

Ray Fassett