Here's what the introductory sentence to Appendix 6 (Schedule of Reserved Names) for the .com agreement says: "Except to the extent that ICANN otherwise expressly authorizes in writing, the Registry Operator shall reserve names formed with the following labels from initial (i.e. other than renewal) registration within the TLD:" [see http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/appendix-06-01mar06.htm] As you point out Mike, I believe that reserved names are an allowable topic for consensus policy. Referring to the .com agreement again (http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/registry-agmt-com-01mar06 .htm), Section 3.1(b)(iv) says, "Such categories of issues referred to in the preceding sentence shall include, without limitation: . . . (C) reservation of registered names in the TLD that may not be registered initially or that may not be renewed due to reasons reasonably related to (a) avoidance of confusion among or misleading of users, (b) intellectual property, or (c) the technical management of the DNS or the Internet (e.g., establishment of reservations of names from registration); . . ." The question in my opinion is not whether reserved names are within the picket fence but whether a consensus policy is needed to change the requirements in existing registry agreements. Does the ICANN GC believe that the requirement could/should be changed in any of the following ways: 1) simply directing gTLD registries/sponsors in writing to cease reserving single-character names at the second level and thereby unilaterally amending the agreements; 2) negotiating with registries/sponsors to amend their agreements; 3) initiating a PDP to develop a consensus policy. My reason for forwarding this to the Council in advance of our further discussion on this issue is that it seems to me that we need to know whether a PDP is needed or whether the changes could occur without a PDP. It appears to me that a PDP that resulted in the removal of the reservation requirement would accomplish the desired result but it would also be more time consuming than necessary; therefore, approaches 1) and 2) might be quicker. But it is not for me to say if they are possible under existing registry agreements. So we may want to join Jeff in asking the questions he has asked, possibly in our own way. A fourth way that the change could probably happen on a case-by-case basis would seem to be that any given registry/sponsor could propose a Registry Service for releasing the single-character names at the second-level. This of course would involve the RSTEP process. Chuck -----Original Message----- From: owner-council@gnso.icann.org [mailto:owner-council@gnso.icann.org] On Behalf Of Mike Rodenbaugh Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2008 5:40 PM To: 'Council GNSO' Subject: RE: [REGYCON] FW: [REGYCON] FW: [council] ICANN Synthesis on Single-Character Names at the Second-Level 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