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

Sat Apr 23 22:47:17 UTC 2016

Dear Alexander, 

Your case is interesting, but from your words is
already implied that it's an "edge case". However, generally speaking, I
believe that a PDP should guarantee that we have a stable and at the
same time fertile environment that, at the same time, will prevent the
creation of problems as much as possible. So, I think the safest
solution is to have the ISO list protected and an Early Warning System
activated. 

Let me give you an example: 

1. Greece has two ccTLDs: .gr
(Latin, i.e. the ISO3166-1 alpha-2 code) and .ελ (IDN - live hopefully
soon). Both of them are run by the same Registry in order to have
policies implemented to avoid confusability issues, as well as trademark
issues. 

2. Someone is asking for .GRC (i.e. the ISO3166-1 alpha-3
code) for a new ccTLD. He has to have a letter of support from the Greek
government. Let's think... who is this guy? 

 2.1 Is the applicant
someone that is a total stranger to the Greek government? Yes -> do we
like him? If no, end of story / if yes -> so, we give him a letter of
support. We can also be proud that we are in favour of the competition
in the ccTLD market of Greece! We also take money for selling a
"licence" to a new company that wants to operate in the Greek domain
market! But it is also our duty to protect citizens and businesses from
any kind of confusion. Do we really want to create customers just by
registering their brand names and trademarks to another TLD? Too much
mess, too much noise, not stable environment, too many complaints, too
difficult to draw back... 

 2.2 Is the applicant someone that is a
total stranger to the Greek government? No -> so, it has taken
government's support from the very beginning. That means that the
government has taken into consideration all the above. It also adds a
third ccTLD in the Greek domain market and creates even more
competition! Is the government ready to take this risk? What is there to
gain apart from an amount of money for selling a "licence" to another
company operating in the Greek domain name market? However, this market
is not at all similar to the mobile operators' market and, surely, the
profit limit is in a different (much lower) level than the one in mobile
operator's market, while the cons are too many, as described in 2.1
before... 

3. Someone is asking for .GRC (i.e. the ISO3166-1 alpha-3
code) for a new gTLD. He doesn't need a letter of support because it's
not a ccTLD, but... oops! this ISO code has been assigned to Greece!
It's good that we have the Early Warning System to notify us! Even if we
say that in the previous occasion (i.e. .GRC as a new ccTLD) the Greek
government would take some money for selling a new "licence", in this
case (Alexander's "edge case") there is no profit for the government at
all, while, at the same time, it is government's duty to protect the
interest of the local community and to do everything possible to avoid
at least user confusion. And, above all, who is this guy that will use a
3-letter code that indicates Greece? Is a good guy or a bad guy? And
what if now it's a good guy, but in the future will sell .GRC to a bad
guy for any reason? No, not at all, this is a kind of risk that no
government will ever take! Can you imagine .USA run by a north-korean
company as a gTLD? I cannot! 

4.1 Someone is asking for .GRE (or .ELL)
for a new ccTLD -> he needs a letter of support form the Greek
government. Go to No.2 :) 

4.2 Someone is asking for .GRE (or .ELL) for
a new gTLD -> he doesn't legally need a letter of support, BUT,
unfortunately, this 3-letter code has been used globally in order to
indicate Greek athletes and even the Greek National Team in almost every
sport! Again, thanks God that we have the Early Warning System to notify
us! If for any reason we are convinced that .ELL (for example) can be
used without causing user confusion or any other problem, then we might
come into some kind of agreement with the applicant. But we are clear
from the begining: a government's duty is to serve public interest
first! 

5.1 Someone is asking for .HELLAS (transliteration of the name
of the country from the Greek) for a new ccTLD -> he needs a letter of
support form the Greek government. Go to No.2 :) 

5.2 Someone is asking
for .HELLAS for a new gTLD -> Can he easily take it, because it's a
larger-than-3-character string? -> Again, thanks God that we have the
Early Warning System to notify us! Depending the string, we may or may
not come into some negotiations with the applicant, but, as mentioned
before, a government's duty is to serve public interest first!

Finally, I would like to wish to all of our colleagues Happy Easter
(the Greek-Orthodox Easter is on 1st May)! For this reason I'm taking
some days off and I will be happy to discuss further with you during our
conference call. 

Best regards, 

Panos 

PS. Lars, can you please
confirm the acceptance of the email? Thank you in advance! 

---

Panagiotis Papaspiliopoulos
Accredited Representative of Greece to the
GAC of ICANN
Senior Policy Advisor - Telecommunications Expert

Hellenic
Ministry of Infrastructure, Transport & Networks
General Secretariat of
Telecommunications & Post
General Directorate of Telecommunications &
Post
tel: +30 210 650 8538
fax: +30 210 650 8533
email:
p.papaspil[at]yme.gov.gr

On 23/04/2016 21:40, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G.
wrote: 

> 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 
> 
>> NSO working group
could have come to that conclusion, but to the best of my k
> didn´t. o
Hence agrees into creating its own "competition" 
> 
> The Swiss
authorities did it > new policy and .swiss is longer than 3
letters…&hell
> s the DNS is also about innovation. o The relevant
Government authorities agree in such usage as well 
> 
> which relevant
Gov Auth.??
> What if UK said they want .eng Domains (no, I am not
building a .eng) - and they WANT them in 
> 
>> hellip;
> #1010ff 2px
solid; margin-left:5px; width:100%">Who are we to deny them their wish?

> 
> So far, only the applicants guidebook of the last round
>
http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdfctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org]
On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:32 PM To:

Links:
------
[1] mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org
[2]
mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org
[3] http://www.symanteccloud.com
[4]
http://www.symanteccloud.com
[5] mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
[6]
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
[7]
https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463
[8]
mailto:colin at PartridgePartnersPC.com
[9]
mailto:colin at PartridgePartnersPC.com
[10]
mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org
[11] mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org
[12]
mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org
[13] mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org
[14]
mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org
[15]
mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160424/90350636/attachment.html>