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

Tue Apr 26 12:36:18 UTC 2016

Hi Annabeth,

You wrote:  

“Annebeth: Alexander, do you mean that both the relevant government/public
authority and the ccTLD operator should agree?”

Well: If the alternative is to deny the constituents of a territory (the
ccTLD operator, a community applicant, the Government, etc) to apply for and
use in any way they fancy a ISO 3166 code then why not introducing as
“safeguard” the approval of the ccTLD operator? The country authorities
obviously need to sign off anyways. Some independent ccTLD operators (like
the largest one: DENIC eG with 16 Million domains – wholly independent from
the German Government) might fear that by creating a Government operated
“alternative” the independency is undermined. 

And thanks for the .berlin compliments. Kudos to Dirk more than to me btw! 

Thanks,

Alexander.berlin

From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no] 
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:25 PM
To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg at isoc-cr.org>; Alexander Schubert
<alexander at schubert.berlin>
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

Dear Carlos and Alexander,

My comments are included inline as well. I will also send a separate mail on
some other issues.

Kind regards

Annebeth

Annebeth B. Lange

Special Adviser International Policy

UNINETT Norid AS

P.O.Box 6979 St. Olavs plass

NO-0130 Oslo

 <mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no> annebeth.lange at uninett.no 

Mobile: +47 959 11 559

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Carlos Raul Gutierrez
<crg at isoc-cr.org <mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org> >
Date: Saturday 23 April 2016 20:40
To: Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin
<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> >
Cc: "ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> "
<ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> >
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

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!

Annebeth: This is in contradiction with the “Starting point for Possible
Policy Framework” in the Straw Man Paper, and therefore shows clearly your
point above, Carlos, that we are far from consensus.

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

Annebeth: Underline my comment 36 in the Straw Man that it will be
impossible to deny a government to market “their” 3-letter code, for example
in competition with the existing 2-letter code.

which relevant Gov Auth.??

Annebeth: The text from the AGB 2.2.1.4.2 about registration of cities etc.
uses the expression “the relevant government or public authorities”.  It
must be up to each country to establish what that is.

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”?

Annebeth: Alexander, do you mean that both the relevant government/public
authority and the ccTLD operator should agree?

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

Kindly

Annebeth

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: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:32 PM

To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto: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>  

<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>

<mailto:lars.hoffmann at icann.org> >, "ctn-crosscom at icann.org
<mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org>  

<mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom at icann.org
<mailto: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>  

[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>
<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 <mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org> 

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom

_______________________________________________

Ctn-crosscom mailing list

Ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org> 

https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20160426/7a4f07df/attachment-0001.html>