[Ctn-crosscom] FW: Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

Sat Apr 23 18:06:32 UTC 2016

Dear All,

I have been following this group for quite some while but remained obviously silent. I have been engaged in geo-gTLD’s since November 2004; when Dirk and me started “.berlin”. I have also founded an applicant that went for a three letter new gTLD (the community applicant for .gay). 

I am planning to create a true community multi stakeholder applicant for a three letter gTLD based on an ISO 3166 III code in the 2nd round; and write here in that capacity.  Reading your thoughts I can say that that string:

*         WILL be marketed as alternative to the corresponding ccTLD! And there is absolutely ZERO reason to deny such use, if:

o   The respective ccTLD operator is the RSP for the new string and

o   Hence agrees into creating its own “competition” 

o   The relevant Government authorities agree in such usage as well 

I think the litmus test is: What if a nation WANTS another TLD? What if UK said they want .eng Domains (no, I am not building a .eng) – and they WANT them in direct competition with .uk? Who are we to deny them their wish? Why not simply assigning the same principles as for geo-TLD’s: If the relevant Government authorities agree – then obviously they want it. Why would we DENY them that string? Same with the ccTLD competition: If the ccTLD operator is in agreement (e.g. because they are the RSP for the new string or for whatever other reason) why not allowing them to market it as “competition”? 

Would a double opt-in by Government AND the ccTLD operator ease the concerns? Does the GAC even REALIZE that the “perceived protection” amounts to restriction in the end?

Sincerely yours,

Alexander.berlin

From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann
Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:32 PM
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] FW: Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

Der all, 

Here is Colin’s document for those who did not receive it. 

Best. Lars

From: Colin O'Brien <colin at PartridgePartnersPC.com <mailto:colin at PartridgePartnersPC.com> >
Date: Thursday 21 April 2016 at 14:19
To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann at icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org> >, "ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> >
Subject: RE: Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

Hello Lars,

Please find attached my comments and edits.

Cordially,

Colin

From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann
Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:35 PM
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> 
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

Dear all,

Please find attached the updated version of the StrawWoman on 30-chacter codes. The document contains redlined comments from Annebeth, Panos, Ørnulf, and Jaap.

If you have any comments please use the attached documents and add them via track-changes and submit back to the list or forward just to me. I will collate all comments and redistribute a master document prior to our next call. 

Speaking of … due to scheduling issues, the co-Chairs have decided to move the next call to Monday 2 May 2016, time TBD.

Best wishes,

Lars

______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160423/2fc15d56/attachment.html>