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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@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