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

Sat Apr 23 18:40:40 UTC 2016

Dear Alexander

my comments inline and welcome to participate actively in the group!!!!

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
+506 8837 7176
Skype: carlos.raulg
Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
On 23 Apr 2016, at 12:06, Alexander Schubert wrote:

> 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;

In that case I strongly encourage you to support a definitive 
pdp-process on the use of country and territory names based on ISO that 
may or may not support your idea but make it mandatory for any 
subsequent round. So far this is only a CWG exercise, and the draft text 
shows that for the time being it is not possible to preclude any of the 
ideas submitted so far to the Team about using 3-letter codes or not, 
because we are far from any consensus (other that developing a true 
policy process from my personal perspective).

> 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

Who would deny?

> such use, if:
>
> o   The respective ccTLD operator is the RSP for the new string and

the previous ccNSO working group could have come to that conclusion, but 
to the best of my knowledge they didn´t.
>
> o   Hence agrees into creating its own “competition”

The Swiss authorities did it to some degree by not allowing .ch to run 
.swiss, but that was their own innovation without the need of any new 
policy and .swiss is longer than 3 letters……..sometimes the DNS is 
also about innovation.
>
> o   The relevant Government authorities agree in such usage as well
>

which relevant Gov Auth.??
>
>
> I think the litmus test is: What if a nation WANTS another TLD?
another TLD or another ccTLD?
> What if UK said they want .eng Domains (no, I am not building a .eng) 
> – and they WANT them in direct competition with .uk?
not sure if eng is a 3 letter code under ISO………

> Who are we to deny them their wish?

So far, only the applicants guidebook of the last round

> 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”?

nice idea for the ccNSO
>
>
>
> Would a double opt-in by Government AND the ccTLD operator ease the 
> concerns?

possible, if the local jurisdiction make such a deal possible. But 
again, outside the realm of ICANN
> Does the GAC even REALIZE that the “perceived protection” amounts 
> to restriction in the end?

GAC has its own WG on Geographic names. You could ask them
>
> Sincerely yours,
>

Recommended reading on the previous work by the ccNSO
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf

http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-progress-23sep14-en.pdf

Recommended reading on the objectives of this ccNSO-GNSO CWgroup

https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463

>
>
> Alexander.berlin

Cheers
Carlos Raul Gutierrez
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud 
> service.
> For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom