We found out on Monday that Baby 3.0 is going to be a boy.

(I am also happy to report that the baby-in-progress is doing fine, and the doctors have no cause for concern. Always a good thing to hear.)

Having this news now gives us plenty of time to come up with a name. If events play out this time the way they did last time, we'll probably need all the time we can get.

We haven't set out our list of rules yet for choosing a name this time, although one criteria from last time is likely to be modified. Rather than saying we're ruling out the top X most common names (as tallied by the Social Security Administration), we'll probably simply want to avoid the most common names given in our particular region. How we'll determine that, I'm not sure yet.

And even though we are aware that "ESPN" has been used as a baby name, we are not likely to be naming our third child "Sienen" or "Foxnews" or "Emesenbeesee". "Spike" and "Oxygen" are also right out. (Truth be told, we still don't have cable or satellite feeds, anyway, and "Peabee S." would just get the kid beat up in school.)

We're also not likely to name Baby 3.0 after contemporary icons of brains and business. The fact that such figures are controversial is one problem, but even worse is that their names are, well, nouny. "Jobs Rousselle" or "Gates Rousselle"? Bleh.

Spelling remains an important consideration: we'll want to make sure that there aren't a lot of common variations on spelling, and that it's easy for most people to spell the name correctly upon first hearing. "Cujo," anyone?

Oh, and the name has to be unequivocally a boy's name. Not Pat, Sam, Terry, or Chris. No boys-names-turned-girls-names, like Taylor or Dakota.

But other than that, the field is wiiide open. Let the Names begin!