[Ctn-crosscom] post-Helsinki strawman paper: next call scheduled for Monday 29 August, 21 UTC

[Timo Võhmar]

Thank you Maxim for your comment!

I happen to share the opinion that the way geo tlds were delegated is not
good - it gives an illusion of control to governments and puts the tld
operator in unfair position in comparison to cc and gtlds. But let's not
open this can right now. In my humble opinion keeping only the two separate
delegation tracks - ccTLD and gTLD is all that is needed. Giving local
governments a reason to choose whether to keep a country code, geo or
country name under its control as cctld or giving it up to the wild as gTLD
should be the problem to find an answer to.

not for profit does not have to mean charity - in most cases these are self
financed organisations that have no other means of income than domain
registrations. not for profit means we do not charge more than we need to
sustainably run the organisation.

.com is history, today we have list of three letter country codes that are
blocked for everyone and our goal was to find a solution that would enable
to put these in use. All as ccTLDs or gTLD will probably not pass, the
first round's geo TLD model is flawed at least in some minds and you seem
to confirm that. Unfortunately we did not reach the goal.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Head of development
Estonian Internet Foundation

On Mon, Aug 29, 2016 at 10:46 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba at gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Timo,
>
> As a non-for-profit GEO TLD Registry I see GEOs to be stuck between ccTLD
> and the rest of new gTLD world.
>
> Most GEOs have names of capital cities, so we can not "make money" without
> responsibility before the Mayor's offices (and local governments) of the
> biggest cities
> of our countries.
>
> P.s: after all most CCTLDs charge for domains and do not give it for free.
>
> P.P.s: with 3 letters everything was messed up years ago (Comoro Islands)
> and some more were delegated in the last round ...
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Special projects manager,
> International Relations Department,
> FAITID
>
> m. +7 916 6761580
> skype oldfrogger
>
> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
>
> > On Aug 27, 2016, at 00:39, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar at internet.ee> wrote:
> >
> > Thank you Carlos for your kind and calming words!
> >
> > I still feel that taking this issue to GNSO is bad idea from the
> governmental and ccTLD perspective. I do understand Alexander's and Susan's
> standpoints and respect their opinions, but I disagree.
> >
> > I do not feel that my and Estonia's dream of .est as ccTLD is impossible
> - yet. Having also spoken with some government advisers and seeing that
> some actually understand that for registrants and internet users there is
> no difference between ccTLD and gTLD, the only thing that matters to them
> is what the tld stands for in their mind. The difference between ccTLD,
> gTLD, new gTLD, geoTLD is the delegation process and who is in control in
> the end. This is important only to us - TLD operators, ICANN, governments
> in the case at hand and businesses trying to protect their brand or make
> money. I am sure there are GAC members that believe that ccTLD stands for
> two letter TLD. And I know there are those that feel differently. There is
> and will be no chaos - lets not talk nonsense.
> >
> > I do feel a bit alone and outnumbered here - thank you Rosalia for
> speaking up. I believe that GNSO PDP group is biased. We should discuss
> what was lacking in this CWG and try to fix that with new CWG interation.
> So if GNSO PDP suggestion is pushed in the report, I ask that alternative
> solution with balanced cross-community working group is also suggested.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Timo Võhmar
> > Head of development
> > Estonian Internet Foundation
> > www.internet.ee
> >
> > On Fri, Aug 26, 2016 at 7:06 PM, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <
> crg at isoc-cr.org> wrote:
> > Dear Timo,
> >
> > first of all many thanks for your suggestions. It would be good to take
> a step back and recognise that
> >
> > 1. The ccNSO already spent more than 2 years thinking about this, and it
> was their report that suggested create the present Working Group together
> with the GNSO to look for a general framework (instead of restrictive lists
> of reserved names that I´m afraid will be never complete.
> > 2. The GAC has also spent quite some time on Geographic names, without
> any conclusive reports and/or recommendations.
> > 3. This is so to say the 3rd effort open to all. So please join us in ur
> next call
> >
> > Best regards
> >
> >
> > Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez
> > +506 8837 7176
> > Skype: carlos.raulg
> > Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> > 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/20160829/608eb84b/attachment.html>