[Ctn-crosscom] FW: [ccTLDcommunity] Questionnaire CCWG Use of names of country and Territories: 3-letter codes

[Lars Hoffmann]

Dear all, please find below responses form the .hk registry operator.
Very best. 
Lars



From:  Jonathan Shea <jonathan.shea at hkirc.hk>
Date:  Thursday, 5 November 2015 21:25
To:  Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
Subject:  RE: [ccTLDcommunity] Questionnaire CCWG Use of names of country
and Territories: 3-letter codes

Hi Lars,
 
Below please find our replies to the questions raised.
 
1.        In future, should all three-character top-level domains be
reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be
the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

<JS> Yes, all country and territory 3-character TLDs should be reserved as
ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs. Otherwise, confusion and
wrong perception will be caused to Internet users as to whether the
3-character TLD or the 2-character ccTLD is the true official representation
of the country/territory. Also, the basic difference between ccTLD and gTLD
is that a ccTLD represents country/territory and gTLDs are for generic terms
with no geographic connotation.
2.        In future, should all three-character top-level domains be
eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the
existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character
version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation?
What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

<JS> Apart from the 3-character codes on the ISO 3166-1 list, there may be
codes or strings which are 3-character or longer which are commonly
accepted/used for specific countries or territories but not on the ISO list.
These should be ineligible for use as gTLDs too. Otherwise gross
misunderstanding and confusion will be caused on which ones of these are the
ones truly representing the country/territory.
3.        In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as
gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO
3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection
from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the
advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

<JS> This is ok. But all ccTLDs should be consulted rather than only those
which are thought to be relevant.
4.        In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character
strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string
similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a
policy?

<JS> This is not sufficient. See answers to Q1, 2, 3 above.
5.        In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved
exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the
advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

<JS> All IDNs which are official names or commonly known names of countries
or territories, irrespective of their length (number of IDN characters)
should be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs.
6.        In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character
strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable
string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such
a policy?

<JS> This is not sufficient. See answer to Q6 above.
7.        Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in
its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains?

<JS> Nil.
 
 

Regards,
Jonathan Shea
HKIRC (.hk ccTLD)
 

From: cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org
[mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces at cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Bart
Boswinkel
Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2015 5:31 PM
To: ccnso-members at icann.org; cctldcommunity at cctld-managers.org
Cc: Lars Hoffmann; ccnso-council at icann.org
Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Questionnaire CCWG Use of names of country and
Territories: 3-letter codes
 

Dear all,
Please find included a request for input from the cross-community working
group  on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains
(CWG-UCTN). Please respond to lars.hoffmann at icann.org (also included in the
cc). Closing date is 30 November 2015. The questionnaire is a follow-up from
the presentation Annebeth Lange (.no) and Paul Szyndler (.au) gave at the
ccNSO meeting in Dublin. Their presentation can be found here:
https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ccnso-members/presentati
on-ctn-20oct15-en.pdf
<https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ccnso-members/presentat
ion-ctn-20oct15-en.pdf> .
 
Kind regards,
Bart Boswinkel
 
 
--------------------
Dear all,
As you may be aware, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils have chartered a Cross
Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as
top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review the
current status of representations of country and territory names, as they
exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In addition,
the Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the feasibility of
developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions that could be
applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country and territory
names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of the WG is strictly
limited to:
·         Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their
subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code
International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions
(ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other geographical
indicators, such as regions, are excluded;
·         The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The
use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is excluded.
 
The CWG-UTCN has divided its work into three work stream: 2-letter codes,
3-letter codes, and full names of countries and territories; currently the
Group is starting its discussion on 3-letter codes and it is on this issue
specifically that your feedback is being sought at this time. Please note
that the community will be given ample opportunity to comment and provide
feedback on all other issues in due course.
 
To help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character codes, you will
find below a number of questions; it would be very helpful to the Group if
you could provide feedback on some or all questions raised. Please do not
hesitate to supply any additional comments you may have on three-letter
codes, as long as they are within the scope of work of the CWG (see above).
 
Please send your comments to Lars Hoffmann (lars.hoffmann at icann.org
<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org> ), who is part of the CWG¹s staff support
team, by Monday 30 November 2015. If you cannot submit your input by that
date, but you would like to contribute, please let us know when we can
expect to receive your contribution so we can plan accordingly.
 
 
Your input will be very much appreciated.
 With best regards,
 
Heather Forrest, GNSO (Co-Chair)
Carlos Gutiérrez, GNSO (Co-Chair)
Annebeth Lange, ccNSO (Co-Chair)
Paul Szyndler, ccNSO (Co-Chair)


Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of
country and territory names as top-level domains
 
1.      In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved
as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the
advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

2.      In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible
for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing
alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of
the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would
be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

3.      In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as
gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO
3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection
from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the
advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

4.      In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character
strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string
similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a
policy?

5.      In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved
exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the
advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?

6.      In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character
strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable
string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such
a policy?

7.      Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in
its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains?

 


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20151109/7cffee33/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/pkcs7-signature
Size: 5091 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20151109/7cffee33/smime-0001.p7s>