[council] RN-WG SoW

Wed Apr 11 20:49:12 UTC 2007

Aren't we simply looking to extend the term of the RN WG? Why are we  
discussing substantively changing the SOW after the group has already  
convened?

On 11-Apr-07, at 2:18 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:

> I move to change the SoW objective re ICANN/IANA names from "Maintain
> status quo for now regarding ASCII names" to 'explore basis for  
> current
> reservation, and whether to continue it.'
>
>
>
> Staff said months ago, during the initial WG session, that they were
> looking into any basis for this reservation.  I strongly suspect there
> is no other basis than potential user confusion, aka brand protection.
> There has been plenty of time to come up with other reasons, and  
> now 30
> days more.  The WG and Council should consider whether to continue  
> it in
> newTLD contracts.
>
>
>
> Mike Rodenbaugh
>
> Sr. Legal Director
>
> Yahoo! Inc.
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes at verisign.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 4:39 PM
> To: Mike Rodenbaugh
> Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW
>
>
>
> Mike,
>
>
>
> Please see my responses below.
>
>
>
> Chuck Gomes
>
>
>
> "This message is intended for the use of the individual or entity to
> which it is addressed, and may contain information that is privileged,
> confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable law. Any
> unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly  
> prohibited. If
> you have received this message in error, please notify sender
> immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
>
>
> 	
>
> 	
>   _____
>
>
> 	From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh
> 	Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 2:45 PM
> 	To: GNSO Council
> 	Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW
>
> 	Thanks Chuck, I have three comments on this.  First, I think re
> 1 and 2 character names, that we also should consult GAC regarding 2
> character ASCII TLDs as I have suggested in prior email and I  
> believe is
> supported by Bruce and others.
> 	[Gomes, Chuck] As far as I am aware, there is nothing that
> prevents us from contacting the GAC on this but it is not clear  
> what our
> objective would be.  Their input is of course welcome, but it is
> virtually impossible to get any feedback before our 30-day extension
> would end.
>
> 	
>
> 	Second, re "other reserved names at the second level" (aka
> 'premium names' and the like), if this is outside the scope of the  
> RN-WG
> then that is fine, but we need to add it to the newTLD TF to consider
> what to require of applicants in this regard.  I doubt that anyone  
> wants
> to allow new TLD registries to reserve whatever names they choose for
> however long they like on whatever basis, which is the current reality
> at .travel.  There needs to be transparency in the application and
> pre-launch phases to address this issue.
> 	[Gomes, Chuck] I'll leave it to you to deal with this as you
> feel you need to.
>
> 	
>
> 	Third, I object to re-launching this WG with the objective to
> 'maintain the status quo for now' re ICANN/IANA related names.  I
> believe Staff was looking into any reasoning behind these historical
> reservations, other than the obvious reason to avoid user confusion  
> were
> 'someone else' to register something like iab.web (for example the
> Interactive Advertising Bureau...).  We should see whether Staff or
> anyone else comes up with any other reasoning.  Assuming not, then it
> would make no sense to continue these reservations on the basis of  
> user
> confusion.
> 	[Gomes, Chuck]  Please note that we are not "re-launcing this WG
> with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now' re ICANN/IANA
> related names'.  The WG SoW contains several much more significant  
> tasks
> than the one related to ICANN/IANA related names.  The reason the SoW
> was worded as it is regarding ICANN/IANA names is because of direction
> received in Lisbon and because it seemed highly unlikely that the  
> issues
> in question could be resolved in 30-days.
>
> 	
>
> 	Indeed that would be entirely self serving and appalling to many
> in the community who have to fight and pay for their defensive
> registrations with each new TLD launch, or otherwise fight
> cybersquatters who register domain names that correspond to brands.
> ICANN should experience that as well, in hopes that better policy  
> may be
> made for us all, rather than protecting itself via the Reserved Names
> list when such protection is not available to those with a far greater
> need for it.  So I recommend we change this objective to 'explore  
> basis
> for current reservation, and decide whether to continue it.'
> 	[Gomes, Chuck] If the Council so directs, we can certainly try
> to resolve it but I personally think it is unrealistic and that other
> categories are more time sensitive with regard to the introduction of
> new gTLDs.
>
> 	
>
> 	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: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck
> 	Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 5:43 AM
> 	To: GNSO Council; Bruce Tonkin
> 	Subject: [council] RN-WG SoW
> 	Importance: High
>
> 	
>
> 	Attached is a fairly detailed SoW for a 30-day extension of the
> RN-WG.  The current plan would be to restart the group on  
> Wednesday, 11
> April and end it on Thursday, 10 May.  This should allow enough  
> time for
> inclusion of the final recommendations into the final New gTLD Report.
>
> 	
>
> 	As we discussed on Thursday afternoon in Lisbon, we need to take
> action on this via email before our next teleconference meeting on 12
> April, and I need to communicate the meeting schedule to the working
> group the end of this week.  Therefore, I would like to propose the
> following motion:
>
> 	
>
> 	"Per the terms of the original Reserved Name Working Group
> (RN-WG) Statement of Work approved by the Council, the RN-WG is  
> extended
> for an additional 30 days starting on 11 April 2007 and ending on  
> 10 May
> 2007 with the tasks defined in the attached Statement of Work and with
> the requirement to deliver a final report not later than 10 May 2007."
>
> 	
>
> 	Chuck Gomes
>
> 	
>
> 	"This message is intended for the use of the individual or
> entity to which it is addressed, and may contain information that is
> privileged, confidential and exempt from disclosure under applicable
> law. Any unauthorized use, distribution, or disclosure is strictly
> prohibited. If you have received this message in error, please notify
> sender immediately and destroy/delete the original transmission."
>
> 	
>

Ross Rader
Director, Retail Services
t. 416.538.5492
c. 416.828.8783
http://www.domaindirect.com

"To solve the problems of today, we must focus on tomorrow."
- Erik Nupponen