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

["Edmon Chung" <edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

I do not quite understand the point about restrict of competition.  This 
particular whole process for creating new gTLDs create competition for 
registries, which I do not find any problem with.  I personally do think that 
it is a sensible idea to caution new gTLDs on the release of names that 
correspond to other TLDs.  That is no different than cautioning new gTLDs on 
releasing names that has some form of registered prior right that may or may 
not be confusing given a particular TLD.

 

What I am suggesting I think make sense in a way that would caution new TLD 
operators that it is important to take into consideration the other TLDs when 
you allocate these names.  As mentioned, the idea is that a consent be sought 
from existing registry operator for which must not be unreasonably withheld.  
For example, it is unreasonable to withhold such consent due to anticompetition 
reason.

 

So I dont quite understand the issue with restricting competition.

 

The other part about managing the process, well even at the 1000 gTLDs level, I 
do not think it will be overly burdensome if these names required such a 
consideration.  Again, back to the point that giving some consideration  and 
not prevention is important in my mind.

 

Furthermore, before we get to that volume, I am sure many other policies have 
to be revised as well... and this would not be on top of the list I feel.

 

Edmon

 

 

 

 

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Alistair DIXON
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 7:15 AM
To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

I have similar concerns to Mike: a requirement for permission from the relevant 
gTLD registry for release of a gTLD string seems to me as much a device to 
restrict competition as to unreserve names.  As was pointed out on the call, 
gTLD strings are present in many cc domains, eg .com.au, .net.nz, .mil.nz, 
.org.uk, etc.  There is certainly no evidence of user confusion with these 
strings and why there would be with .jobs.travel or .mobi.net is unclear to me. 
 The RSTEP report seems to confirm this.  I would therefore agree with Mike's 
proposed recommendation that existing names reserved on this basis be released.

 

Alistair Dixon

 

-----Original Message-----
From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]On Behalf 
Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Friday, 4 May 2007 09:52
To: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

I very much doubt users would be confused to thinking, for example, that 
jobs.travel must be affiliated with the .jobs registry or that org.jobs must be 
affiliated with the .org registry.  I also think it is an unfair advantage for 
existing TLD registries to reserve their name at the second level in every new 
TLD, while new TLD operators can have no such protection in existing TLDs.  
Indeed that is the case now with all the ‘newer’ TLD strings registered in 
.com, net and org.  In the world of 1000 TLDs that everyone envisions, this 
reservation requirement makes no sense and it has not been justified in any way 
by anyone to date.  I think therefore that the WG should recommend it be 
eliminated, and existing domains reserved on this basis should be released.  

 

If this is not the majority opinion, then I would like to make this a minority 
statement.

 

Thanks.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

 


  _____  


From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf 
Of Ray Fassett
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:05 AM
To: 'Tim Ruiz'
Cc: gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

These are good questions, Tim.  Let me try to respond prior to our call.  
First, I think it is important to appreciate that the reservation of gTLD 
strings is a contractual condition and not a policy.  PDP 05 is a policy 
setting process.  If the sub-group is to make a recommendation (in theory to 
PDP 05) to create “new policy” 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).  Second, the reservation of 
gTLD strings is an existing contractual condition, which is different than your 
parallel examples of the IP community and ISP’s (or registrar names).  If an 
existing contractual condition is going to be changed as a recommendation from 
the sub-group’s work, then there is a burden for which to do so (more on this 
below).  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 
achieve for which to do so (for example, see Controversial Names category).  

 

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.  As the chair of this subgroup, I examined the initial findings 
and took the approach of:  Can gTLD strings be unreserved for registration? vs. 
should gTLD strings continue to be reserved from registration?  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.  There really has not been a dissenting opinion to this notion.

 

Comments obtained from within the RyC members clearly favor the preservation of 
this reserved names category.  The sub group must accept this as expert advice, 
objectively while also examining the motivations for such advice.  Some 
individual members of the registrar constituency offered the same opinion as 
RyC members, and for the same reasons i.e. potential user confusion.  Is there 
evidence of user confusion?  I don’t know of a study that indicates that there 
is, just as there is not a study that indicates that there is not.  
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.  While opinions may arise that all gTLD strings should 
simply be unreserved for new TLD’s, the burden was not achieved for this 
recommendation by the sub-group.  What I believe has been achieved is that gTLD 
names can be unreserved.  Given this is true, we had to look at the reason – or 
place – ICANN was taking to restrict – by contract – the registration of gTLD 
strings.  Certainly a technical security and stability issue would suffice.  
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.  
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’s?  Clearly evidence indicates ICANN should not be.  With this said, 
ICANN Core Value 3 is applicable:   

 

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.

 

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.  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’s approval (as 
it does today).

 

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.  I am glad you asked the questions as 
discussion and dialogue is what this is about.

 

Ray

 


  _____  


From: Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:29 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