[Ctn-crosscom] FW: VS: [GAC] Use of 3-letter country codes as top-level domains - please provide feedback

Fri Oct 9 15:46:56 UTC 2015

Dear all,
Please fine below preliminary feedback from Ørnulf Storm.
Best wishes,
Lars

From:  "Storm, Ørnulf" <ornulf.storm at Nkom.no>
Date:  Friday, 9 October 2015 15:43
To:  Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
Cc:  "Lindeberg, Elise" <elise.lindeberg at Nkom.no>, Julia Charvolen
<julia.charvolen at icann.org>, Karine Perset <karine.perset at icann.org>
Subject:  VS: [GAC] Use of 3-letter country codes as top-level domains -
please provide feedback

Hi,
Please find our preliminary brief answers to the questions:

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?

The question is not asked correctly. We don¹t think 3-letter country codes
should be used at all (unless for some instances of IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs.
See answers below on Q5). They should not be reserved for ccTLDs neither
should they be used for gTLDs. The reason for this is the 3-letter country
code represent the same country or territory as the 2-letter country code.
Therefore, using these 3-letter codes at allcould create end user confusion.
Using the 3-letter country codes for ccTLDs could be a confusion for the end
user since the 3-letter country codes has so strong association to the
country and could therefore by the end user be mixed up with the existing
ccTLD.

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?

No. Certain 3-letter codes have already been used for gTLDs and there are
actually some instances of them being on the 3-letter country code list. To
use more 3-letter codes for new gTLDs will increase the risk for end user
confusion, so our suggestion is to not use any new three letter code at all
for new neither ccTLDs nor gTLDs.

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?

No, the 3-letter codes should not be used at all. Again, end user confusion.

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?

No. As stated before. We do not think it is a good idea to use more 3-letter
codes for any new top level domains.

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?

No. Existing 3-letter gTLDs should be eligible for an exact match of an
equivalent IDN 3-letter code.  Also new IDN ccTLD should also be eligible
for a IDN 3-letter code.

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?

No. Same as previous answer. The should be very limited use of IDN 3-letter
codesas suggest in the answer to Q5.

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

In our view there are so many other available strings that could be used for
a new top level domain and you should therefore not pick those that will
most certainly cause end user confusion and also are likely to create
conflicts between national law and ICANN policy

Regards,

Ørnulf Storm
Head of Section
Section for Electronic Communication and Internet
Networks Department
Norwegian Communications Authority
Switchboard: + 47 22 82 46 00
Direct: + 47 22 82 46 22
Mobile: + 47 970 72696
www.nkom.no <http://www.nkom.no/>

Von: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen at icann.org]
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. September 2015 15:08
An: Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider at bakom.admin.ch>
Cc: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling at icann.org>; Tom Dale <tom at acig.com.au>;
Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen at icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann
<lars.hoffmann at icann.org>
Betreff: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - please
provide feedback

Dear SO/AC Chair,

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), who is
part of the CWG¹s staff support team, by Friday 9 October 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/20151009/333fa380/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.png
Type: image/png
Size: 3652 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20151009/333fa380/image001-0001.png>
-------------- 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/20151009/333fa380/smime-0001.p7s>