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

[Ross Rader]

In my mind, these are all great examples of why it is important for 
ICANN to take action when policy supports action and to enact policy 
when it doesn't. I've always found it somewhat disturbing that issues of 
such great importance are often rushed into existence without proper 
consideration of the longer-term impact. Creating interim "agreements" 
to address short-term requirements is proving to be a very poor 
substitute for well-conceived policy that has consensus support of the 
community...

I'm not advocating for a burdensome oversight function, but we need to 
be smart enough to avoid the pitfalls of rushing "guidelines" through in 
order to achieve short-term gains.

Michael D. Palage wrote:
> 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.
> 
>