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

[Tim Ruiz <tim@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<div>Edmon,</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
If all we were talking about is a&nbsp;word of caution, I&nbsp;could
agree to that. But&nbsp;we're talking about recommending that all new gTLD 
registries be required to adhere to a practice&nbsp;for reasons that have no 
basis in fact.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div>
To expect one competitor to be reasonable about the requests of another
is a pipe dream. Who is going to monitor and/or arbitrate that? Before that 
kind of stipulation is included I think&nbsp;experts should be consulted 
(competition authorities, antitrust experts, etc.). But personally, I don't 
think it's worth the effort. There is no known or demonstrable problem with the 
thousands existing gTLD strings used as second level names in dozens of gTLDs 
and ccTLDs. There is a lot of talk about confusion, phising, etc. but no one 
has yet pointed to a single instance.</div>
<div>&nbsp;</div>
<div><BR>Tim Ruiz<BR>Vice President<BR>Corp. Development &amp; Policy<BR>The Go 
Daddy Group, Inc.<BR>Mobile: 319-329-9804<BR>Office: 319-294-3940<BR>Fax: 
480-247-4516<BR><A href="mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx";>tim@xxxxxxxxxxx</A><BR><BR>How 
am I doing? Please contact my direct supervisor at <A 
href="mailto:president@xxxxxxxxxxx";>president@xxxxxxxxxxx</A> with any 
feedback.<BR><BR>
This email message and any attachments hereto is intended for use only
by the addressee(s) named herein and may contain legally privileged and/or 
confidential information. If you have received this email in error, please 
immediately notify the sender and permanently delete the original and any copy 
of this message and its attachments.<BR><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: "Edmon Chung" 
&lt;edmon@xxxxxxxxxxx&gt;<BR>Date: Thu, May 03, 2007 6:44 pm<BR>To: "'Alistair 
DIXON'" 
&lt;Alistair.Dixon@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx&gt;,<BR>&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:&#26032;&#32048;&#26126;&#39636;; panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @font-face   {font-family:"Cambria Math"; panose-1:2 
4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @font-face   {font-family:"Arial Unicode MS"; 
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @font-face   {font-family:Tahoma; panose-1:2 11 6 4 
3 5 4 4 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @font-face   {font-family:Consolas; panose-1:2 11 6 
9 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @font-face   {font-family:"\@Arial Unicode MS"; 
panose-1:2 11 6 4 2 2 2 2 2 4;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @font-face   
{font-family:"\@&#26032;&#32048;&#26126;&#39636;"; panose-1:2 2 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 
0;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp 
#wmMessage li.MsoNormal, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.MsoNormal   {margin:0cm; 
margin-bottom:.0001pt; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage a:link, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.MsoHyperlink  
 {mso-style-priority:99; color:black; text-decoration:underline;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage a:visited, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage 
span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed   {mso-style-priority:99; color:black; 
text-decoration:underline;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage p.MsoPlainText, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage 
li.MsoPlainText, #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.MsoPlainText   
{mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text Char"; 
mso-margin-top-alt:auto; margin-right:0cm; mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto; 
margin-left:0cm; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.PlainTextChar   {mso-style-name:"Plain Text 
Char"; mso-style-priority:99; mso-style-link:"Plain Text"; 
font-family:"Consolas","serif";}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle19   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle20   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle21   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle22   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle23   {mso-style-type:personal; 
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:navy;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage span.EmailStyle24   {mso-style-type:personal-reply; 
font-family:"Arial","sans-serif"; color:windowtext;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage .MsoChpDefault   {mso-style-type:export-only; 
font-size:10.0pt;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage @page Section1   {size:612.0pt 792.0pt; 
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
 #wmMessageComp #wmMessage div.Section1   {page:Section1;}

</STYLE>

<DIV class=Section1>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
I do not quite understand the point about restrict of competition.&nbsp;
This particular whole process for creating new gTLDs create competition for 
registries, which I do not find any problem with.&nbsp; I personally do think 
that it is a sensible idea to caution new gTLDs on the release of names that 
correspond to other TLDs.&nbsp; 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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
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.&nbsp; As mentioned, the idea is that a consent 
be sought from existing registry operator for which must not be unreasonably 
withheld.&nbsp; For example, it is unreasonable to withhold such consent due to 
anticompetition reason.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">So I dont 
quite understand the issue with restricting competition.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
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.&nbsp; Again, back to the point that giving some 
consideration&nbsp; and not prevention is important in my 
mind.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">
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.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">Edmon<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN style="FONT-SIZE: 11pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<DIV style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: medium 
none; PADDING-LEFT: 4pt; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: blue 1.5pt solid; 
PADDING-TOP: 0cm; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<DIV>
<DIV style="BORDER-RIGHT: medium none; PADDING-RIGHT: 0cm; BORDER-TOP: #b5c4df 
1pt solid; PADDING-LEFT: 0cm; PADDING-BOTTOM: 0cm; BORDER-LEFT: medium none; 
PADDING-TOP: 3pt; BORDER-BOTTOM: medium none">
<div><B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 
FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
 owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Alistair DIXON<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, May 04, 2007 7:15 
AM<BR><B>To:</B> gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD 
Reserved Names Chart<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV></DIV>
<div><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></div>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
I have similar concerns to Mike: a requirement for permission
from&nbsp;the relevant gTLD registry&nbsp;for release of a gTLD string seems to 
me as much a device to restrict competition as to unreserve names.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; The RSTEP report seems to confirm 
this.&nbsp; I would therefore agree with Mike's proposed recommendation that 
existing names reserved on this basis be released.</SPAN><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: blue; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">Alistair Dixon</SPAN><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE style="MARGIN-TOP: 5pt; MARGIN-BOTTOM: 5pt; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0cm">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">-----Original 
Message-----<BR><B>From:</B> owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx 
[mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]<B>On Behalf Of </B>Mike 
Rodenbaugh<BR><B>Sent:</B> Friday, 4 May 2007 09:52<BR><B>To:</B> 
gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names 
Chart</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
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.&nbsp; 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.&nbsp; Indeed that is the case now with all the &lsquo;newer&rsquo; TLD 
strings registered in .com, net and org.&nbsp; 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. &nbsp;I think therefore that the 
WG should recommend it be eliminated, and existing domains reserved on this 
basis should be released. &nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
If this is not the majority opinion, then I would like to make this a
minority statement.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">Thanks.<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<DIV>
<P class=MsoPlainText style="MARGIN: 0cm 0cm 0pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: black; FONT-FAMILY: 'Arial','sans-serif'">Mike 
Rodenbaugh<o:p></o:p></SPAN></P>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></DIV>
<div><B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 
FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'">
 owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx]
<B>On Behalf Of </B>Ray Fassett<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 03, 2007 10:05 
AM<BR><B>To:</B> 'Tim Ruiz'<BR><B>Cc:</B> 
gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx<BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names 
Chart</SPAN><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
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></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
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></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
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></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>
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><SPAN lang=EN-US 
style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
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></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
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></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">Ray<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; COLOR: navy; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'"><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<DIV>
<DIV class=MsoNormal style="TEXT-ALIGN: center" align=center><SPAN lang=EN-US>
<HR align=center width="100%" SIZE=2>
</SPAN></DIV>
<div><B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Tahoma','sans-serif'">From:</SPAN></B><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; 
FONT-FAMILY: 'Tahoma','sans-serif'"> Tim Ruiz [mailto:tim@xxxxxxxxxxx] 
<BR><B>Sent:</B> Thursday, May 03, 2007 11:29 AM<BR><B>To:</B> Ray 
Fassett<BR><B>Cc:</B> <st1:PersonName 
w:st="on">gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx</st1:PersonName><BR><B>Subject:</B> RE: 
[gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart</SPAN><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></div>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>
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></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>
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></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>
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></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US>&nbsp;<o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US><BR>Tim <o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV name="wmMessageComp">
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p>&nbsp;</o:p></SPAN></P>
<P class=MsoNormal style="MARGIN-BOTTOM: 12pt"><SPAN lang=EN-US>-------- 
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></P>
<DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">
Attached find the gTLD Reserved Names Chart outlining the sub group
recommendation for discussion on Thursday.</SPAN><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">&nbsp;</SPAN><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV>
<DIV>
<div><SPAN lang=EN-US style="FONT-SIZE: 10pt; FONT-FAMILY: 
'Arial','sans-serif'">Ray Fassett</SPAN><SPAN 
lang=EN-US><o:p></o:p></SPAN></div></DIV></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV></DIV></BLOCKQUOTE></DIV>