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

["Mike Rodenbaugh" <mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Ray, I wanted to follow up on this even though the RN work is now done,
after our exchange at the end of today's call.  I do much appreciate the
point you are making.  These scenarios of course are already happening
and frankly I have rarely if ever tried to deal with them, having so
many other infringement problems.  But expanding the problem into an
unlimited number of new TLDs is definitely not a good idea as it will
create an exponential number of new problems.  I think this dovetails
with the point Palage is making in PRO-WG about prohibiting third level
registrations, at least if the second level name is a TLD name or
confusingly similar to a TLD name.  This is something we all need to
seriously consider in the newTLD work.  Would you support that?

 

We still have existing legacy problems and there will be more after the
next round of TLDs, I guess the only way to deal with those will be
through legal process, but a policy from ICANN prohibiting such
registrations that are confusingly similar (even if no enforced
retroactive effect) might help both these 'third level registries' and
the victims of abusive registrations deal with them as they arise.  

 

I think this issue should be addressed by the PRO-WG making a
recommendation.

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this
communication and any attachments.

  _____  

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Friday, May 04, 2007 6:43 AM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

verizon.com.phone

yahoo.com.shop

redcross.org.charity

osu.edu.school

randomhouse.com.book

ibm.jobs.corp

 

Should I go on?  Do you have a take down procedure in mind for a
com.shop second level registration in Asia?  Or is your expectation that
the registry will do this 'for you" at the third level?  If so, you may
want to re-think that.  Thoughts?

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: Mike Rodenbaugh [mailto:mxr@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 6:04 PM
To: Ray Fassett
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

Thx Ray, I do know, but had to miss this part of the call today and just
wanted to give a couple written sentences which I have mentioned
verbally several times in the past.  Of course I am not surprised the
RyC wants to continue the reservation, but have they offered any reasons
for doing so?

 

Mike Rodenbaugh

Sr. Legal Director

Yahoo! Inc.

 

NOTICE:  This communication is confidential and may be protected by
attorney-client and/or work product privilege.  If you are not the
intended recipient, please notify me by reply, and delete this
communication and any attachments.

  _____  

From: Ray Fassett [mailto:ray@xxxxxxxxx] 
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 3:00 PM
To: Mike Rodenbaugh
Subject: RE: [gnso-rn-wg] gTLD Reserved Names Chart

 

Thank you for this feedback, Mike.  As you know, the work by the
sub-group is not yet complete.

 

Ray

 

  _____  

From: owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-gnso-rn-wg@xxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2007 5:52 PM
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