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."
Chuck, the proposed resolution and plan looks good to me. One thing that was mentioned in Lisbon was to create an annex (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically. If the recommendations are adopted, it will be the list - not our report - that applicants will look at. It will make concrete and practical the council's work. This is doubtless staff work. Is that indeed the intention? Philip
Thanks Philip. I missed that and will add it to the SoW. 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 Philip Sheppard Sent: Thursday, April 05, 2007 8:58 AM To: 'GNSO Council' Subject: RE: [council] RN-WG SoW Chuck, the proposed resolution and plan looks good to me. One thing that was mentioned in Lisbon was to create an annex (with no explanations) which is simply the full proposed list of reserved names listed alphanumerically. If the recommendations are adopted, it will be the list - not our report - that applicants will look at. It will make concrete and practical the council's work. This is doubtless staff work. Is that indeed the intention? Philip
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. 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. 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. 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.' 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."
On 9-Apr-07, at 2:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I object to re-launching this WG with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now'
The onus should always be on making a case for change, otherwise existing practice should be preserved, unless we explicitly set forth a deadline to cease all similar practices. Continuing reservations in one part of the namespace, but ceasing them in others will create customer confusion - not between strings, but in policy exemptions. Let's try to avoid creating a patchwork. 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
The Reserved Names list has always been an incongruous patchwork, which the WG is valiantly trying to break down into categories and make reasoned recommendations for new TLDs. The result is that some will be continued, some not, and some will still need further work to come to a recommendation. 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. -----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] RN-WG SoW On 9-Apr-07, at 2:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I object to re-launching this WG with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now'
The onus should always be on making a case for change, otherwise existing practice should be preserved, unless we explicitly set forth a deadline to cease all similar practices. Continuing reservations in one part of the namespace, but ceasing them in others will create customer confusion - not between strings, but in policy exemptions. Let's try to avoid creating a patchwork. 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
I'm just telegraphing my vote. If the WG can't make sense of the patchwork, then I'll be inclined to perpetuate the status quo - primarily because the incongruous patchwork has gotten us this far and I'm not sure what a blind change would get us. If the rec's do have some sense to them, that's another story, but when I hear things like throwing out the status quo without any justification behind it, I tend to get worried. On 9-Apr-07, at 3:10 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
The Reserved Names list has always been an incongruous patchwork, which the WG is valiantly trying to break down into categories and make reasoned recommendations for new TLDs. The result is that some will be continued, some not, and some will still need further work to come to a recommendation.
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.
-----Original Message----- From: Ross Rader [mailto:ross@tucows.com] Sent: Monday, April 09, 2007 11:54 AM To: Mike Rodenbaugh Cc: GNSO Council Subject: Re: [council] RN-WG SoW
On 9-Apr-07, at 2:45 PM, Mike Rodenbaugh wrote:
I object to re-launching this WG with the objective to 'maintain the status quo for now'
The onus should always be on making a case for change, otherwise existing practice should be preserved, unless we explicitly set forth a deadline to cease all similar practices. Continuing reservations in one part of the namespace, but ceasing them in others will create customer confusion - not between strings, but in policy exemptions. Let's try to avoid creating a patchwork.
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
Hello Chuck, I will add this under agenda item 7 of the GNSO Council meeting agenda for Thursday 12 April 2007. Regards, Bruce Tonkin ________________________________ From: Gomes, Chuck [mailto:cgomes@verisign.com] Sent: Thursday, 5 April 2007 10:43 PM To: GNSO Council; Bruce Tonkin Subject: 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."
participants (5)
-
Bruce Tonkin -
Gomes, Chuck -
Mike Rodenbaugh -
Philip Sheppard -
Ross Rader