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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Edmon, are you saying that tld designations are equivalent to
trademarks?  I might agree with that, and if so they should be protected
the same way through sunrise and the UDRP (currently... soon an EDRP
too, I hope).  (Same with the ICANN/IANA trademarks.)  This should not
happen through reserved named requirements, much less through some new
procedure to request consent to remove names from a reserved list.  Who
would adjudicate the issue of 'reasonableness' in denying such a
request?  And why should new TLDs not be afforded the same protection as
existing TLDs?  That of course would be impossible.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Edmon Chung
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 4:45 PM
To: 'Alistair DIXON'; gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

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