Jeff argues that the reservation requirement is a 'service' implemented by the Registry Operator, and such 'services' cannot be amended by Consensus Policy. Seems a stretch to argue that the act of withholding names from sale is a service, particularly given the definition of Registry Services in Sec. 3.1(d)(iii) -- operations of the registry critical to the following tasks: the receipt of data from registrars concerning registrations of domain names and name servers; provision to registrars of status information relating to the zone servers for the TLD; dissemination of TLD zone files; operation of the registry zone servers; and dissemination of contact and other information concerning domain name server registrations in the TLD. So perhaps a better reading is that implementation of the reservation requirement is not a 'service.' Indeed Sec. 3.1(b)(iv) and 3.1(b)(iv)(C) specifically allows Consensus Policy for issues including "reservation of names in the TLD that may not be registered initially...". And therefore this issue is within purview of potential Consensus Policy. Since we had a Working Group commissioned specifically to look at Reserved Names last year, presumably the ICANN Counsel already came to this conclusion long ago (and/or this argument could have been raised long ago), and so this argument should not delay further policy development now. Thanks, Mike Rodenbaugh -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 8:21 AM To: Council GNSO Subject: FW: [REGYCON] FW: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level In anticipation of our planned discussion of the single-character second-level names issue on 27 March, I am forwarding the following email that raises a fundamental question on that issue. It seems to me that it would be good for us to understand whether or not additional policy development work is need on this issue. Chuck ________________________________ From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 10:19 AM To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level All, Here is the note I sent on 2/27 that has not been answered. I have sent a reminder to ICANN's GC office several times since then to get an answer. Please feel free to post. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> ________________________________ From: Neuman, Jeff Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:17 PM To: 'GNSO Registry Constituency Planning'; 'Patrick Jones'; 'Craig Schwartz' Cc: halloran@icann.org; John Jeffrey Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level I am cc'ing Patrick, Craig, Dan and John on this so I can repeat the same questions I have now asked twice to ICANN staff and Board members. I even note that Craig took notes at the constituency meeting in Dehli to follow up on these questions. I would like the following answered: Does ICANN believe that they can force gTLD Registries to allocate single letter domain names in the first place through a Consensus Policy? I note the following statement in the report: "ICANN has received many inquiries from third parties seeking to register single-character domain names, has advised these parties that the names are reserved, and informed these parties that the reservation can be removed through a bottom-up process. - On what basis did ICANN make these statements? I do not believe that ICANN (or the community) can force these reservations to be removed without registry consent even if there is a Consensus Policy. If ICANN feels differently, please explain the rationale of your statement. Let me expand on why I believe ICANN cannot force the allocation of single letter domains. The following is from the .biz agreement (also in .com, .net, .info and others) which states that Consensus policies may not "3.1 (b)(v)(I) alter services that have been implemented pursuant to Section 3.1(d) of this Agreement (unless justified by compelling and just cause based on Security and Stability." 3.1(d) is the section talking about Registry Operations. It includes the following: "3.1 (d)(i)(A) Registry Operator shall reserve, and not register any TLD strings (i) appearing on the list of reserved TLD strings attached as Appendix 6 hereto or (ii) located at http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt for initial (i.e., other than renewal) registration at the second level within the TLD." So, it states that a consensus policy may not modify the reserved names list "Unless justified by compelling and just cause based on security and stability." ICANN - Where is the compelling security justification?? Thanks. Jeffrey J. Neuman, Esq. Sr. Director, Law, Advanced Services & Business Development NeuStar, Inc. e-mail: Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us <mailto:Jeff.Neuman@Neustar.us> ________________________________ From: GNSO Registry Constituency Planning [mailto:REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM] On Behalf Of Gomes, Chuck Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 8:14 PM To: REGYCON-L@NIC.MUSEUM Subject: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level I haven't had a chance to read this yet but thought I would forward it right away. Chuck ________________________________ From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Jones Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 7:22 PM To: council@gnso.icann.org Subject: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level Prior to the Delhi meeting I advised the Council that staff was preparing a paper on single-character domain names at the second-level. The attached ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Domain Names at the Second-Level is being sent to the Council for information and discussion. Staff is working on engagement of a qualified entity or entities to assist with additional process development for various auction needs. Further information will be provided to the community and the Council. In the meantime, could you place this paper on the schedule near the end of the Council meeting for discussion on 6 March? Regards, Patrick Patrick L. Jones Registry Liaison Manager & Coordinator, ICANN Nominating Committee Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Tel: +1 310 301 3861 Fax: +1 310 823 8649 patrick.jones@icann.org