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

Tue Apr 26 12:42:52 UTC 2016

Your thoughts are interesting, Alexander. Please join the WG more actively :-)

And I meant all of you .berlin entrepreneurs! You have all been very persistent and done good work.

Kind regards
Annebeth

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>" <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Date: Tuesday 26 April 2016 14:36
To: "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

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<mailto:crg at isoc-cr.org>>; Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin>>
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto: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

annebeth.lange at uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no>
Mobile: +47 959 11 559

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto: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
______________________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________
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/20160426/8f1daabc/attachment-0001.html>