[registrars] Regarding rules that don't work going forward

[Michael D. Palage]

John:

As someone that has been working with Afilias with these reserved names
over the past couple of years I would like to add a little constructive
input.

First, like all things ICANN that original reservation list was far from
perfect, but given the circumstances it was an agreed upon solution
among ICANN, the GAC and Afilias. 

Second, you are correct that there were some problem spots in the
original list. However, Afilias and the GAC have provided many of these
problems spots to ICANN so that they can prevent them from re-occurring
in the newly signed sTLD registry contracts.

Third, geographic indicators are a thorny issue as demonstrated by the
still pending WIPO-II recommendations. 

Fourth, resolving issues of contention within individual or collective
GAC representatives is much more complex problem that I had previously
imaged prior to taking my seat on the ICANN board. For anyone interested
in seeing first hand the dynamics of these discussions I encourage you
to take a look at the WSIS prep-com currently taking place in Geneva,
see http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/.

Although I was not an original author of the .INFO country reserve list,
I probably have more day to day experience dealing with it than anyone
else.  So I would tend to disagree with your some what harsh assessment
of the list and its author, but do acknowledge that this is a topic
which is evolving and still needs to be improved.

As always your keen legal insight into ICANN's contractual provisions
are a valuable contribution that both you and Jon Nevett serve to the
registrar community.

Hope to see you in Vancouver.

Best regards,

Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org
[mailto:owner-registrars at gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of John Berryhill
Sent: Thursday, September 22, 2005 12:28 PM
To: 'Bruce Tonkin'; registrars at gnso.icann.org
Subject: RE: [registrars] Regarding rules that don't work going forward




>  We had a rule that you couldn't
>register place names in .com.au.

One can have jolly fun with the .info reserved geographic names here:

http://www.afilias.info/whois_search/reserved_names

For example, Afilias took this list quite literally, and the mis-spelled
"bosnaihercegovina.info" is indeed duly reserved, while the
correctly-spelled bosniahercegovina.info was (until a few moments ago)
available for registration.  

One ponders the government authority responsible for
"occupiedpalestinianterritory.info". "Palestine" or indeed
"Palestinianterritory" do not appear on the list but
"palestinianterritories" does.  Presumably, the GAC in its infinite
wisdom cannot spell "Bosnia", but put quite a bit of effort into
determinining that there is a singular occupied Palestinian territory,
and a plural set of Palestinian territories which are not occupied.
Perhaps the "occupied" version, given the name, is to be reserved for
the occupier, and not for those occupied.

Meanwhile, the official name of one country "The United States of
America" didn't make the list at all, despite the apparent preoccupation
with sorting out various permutations of occupied or non-occupied
Palestinian territories.  We have quite a profusion of "Netherlands" and
its possessions, and no Holland.

Perhaps the most curious construct on the list is
"falklandislands-malvinas".  No Scotland, Wales, nor Northern Ireland,
but world order depends upon reserving a hyphenated name that neither
the UK nor
Argentina would find acceptable for the territory in question.   Her
Majesty's "britishindianoceanterritory" attained the A-list cachet that
the Scots and Welsh did not manage to muster.  One recoils at what
happens when one's obsession for consuming sheep entrails diverts
attention from critically important domain name issues.

It is a pity that these random acts of stupidity in the exercise of
influence fail to bear the names of their authors.