[council] RN-WG SoW

[Ross Rader]

Ah. Thanks for the clarification.

On 11-Apr-07, at 5:00 PM, Gomes, Chuck wrote:

> Ross,
>
> The latest SoW was written as a supplement to the original SoW, not a
> replacement for it, to clarify the tasks that need to be done  
> during the
> 30-day extension.  It was written to include the direction received  
> from
> the Council in Lisbon regarding the RN-WG report that was submitted at
> the end of the initial working period of the group.
>
> 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."
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: owner-council at gnso.icann.org
>> [mailto:owner-council at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Ross Rader
>> Sent: Wednesday, April 11, 2007 4:49 PM
>> To: Mike Rodenbaugh
>> Cc: GNSO Council
>> Subject: Re: [council] RN-WG SoW
>>
>> 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
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>

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