[Ctn-crosscom] what next?!

Mon Jul 4 11:27:33 UTC 2016

You know my thoughts on this - if government decides that a 3 letter ISO
code stands for that country the contract for managing that TLD should be
made between the TLD manager and the government not ICANN. There are
different reasons why a government would like to keep control over the TLD
avoiding competitions and confusion being the most considerable ones. It is
important to note that ccTLD operators are mostly not-for-profit
organisations and gTLDs are profit oriented. gTLD regulations kind of
revolve over profit oriented business model and trying to standardize how
the registry side is run - what kind of data is collected, in what details,
how saved and worst of all ICANNs super database with the details of all
the gTLD registrants is just crazy. No room for data protection, privacy
nor innovation. We as a ccTLD serve other purposes and strive for different
goals - with our e-governance and e-identity we aim for simplicity for the
registrant, one-time data entry, electronic signatures, security and
privacy - staff that is very hard or even impossible to do under current
ICANN contract.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development

Eesti Interneti SA  / Estonian Internet Foundation
Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel + 372 727 1004
www.internet.ee

On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no>
wrote:

> It could be interesting to hear other WG-members think of this approach.
>
> Best regards
> Annebeth
>
>
> Annebeth B Lange
> UNINETT Norid AS
>
>
>
> Den 2. jul. 2016 kl. 20.44 skrev Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin>:
>
> Dear Annabeth,
>
> YES – and we have to relay that information to the GAC – as quite clearly
> they aren’t really informed about it (or rather a sizeable amount of GAC
> reps isn’t).
>
> They have to be moved to  2.2.1.4.2. I think we should get rid of the
> permutations for 3166 Alpha 3 codes in 2.2.1.4.1 vi  - that is hilarious.
> Who would confuse .gar with .arg?
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no
> <annebeth.lange at uninett.no>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:46 PM
> *To:* alexander at schubert.berlin
> *Cc:* ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
>
>
>
> Dear Alexander,
>
>
>
> If I understand your statement below right, do you mean that if the
> protection in the first round in the AGB 2.2.1.4.1 is lifted in the next
> round, the c & t names will be moved down to the geo names in 2.2.1.4.2,
> som that they would need “support or non-objection” from the governments?
> That actually makes sense. If capitols and cities used as cities need this,
> c & t names in all forms are higher in the “hierarchy”, and it would make
> no sense that capitols and cities would need this in the next round and c &
> t names would not. They would still be gTLDs, just like .paris, .berlin etc.
>
>
>
> Is this the right interpretation of what you mean to say below?
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Annebeth
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert
> *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin"
> *Date: *Friday 1 July 2016 at 22:02
> *To: *"ctn-crosscom at icann.org"
> *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
>
>
>
> Timo,
>
> a few notes to this:
>
>
> 1.      You state that *“The codes and names are closed for everybody at
> the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD
> representative I must say that this is much better outcome than
> no-restrictions-gTLD.”*
> That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory
> names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And
> independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a
> letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the
> 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code
> element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could
> impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the
> notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded!
>
> 2.      The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that
> the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round:
> *“…  country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not
> available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! *So very
> clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is
> the upcoming round).
>
> 3.      You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to
> declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that
> they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members
> went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting.
> Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they
> have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter
> TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT
> ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know
> what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu”
> for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in
> Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over
> our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby
> for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators
> will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now.
>
>
>
> If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL
> solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government
> and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are
> DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all
> do fine.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alexander Schubert
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [
> mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>] *On
> Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar
> *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM
> *To:* ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
>
>
>
> Hi all!
>
>
>
> ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about
> the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I
> must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over
> the amazing interweb.
>
>
>
> First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming
> redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more.
> Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3
> letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes
> protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the
> respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the
> correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table
> – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives
> and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry
> gNSO members for being frank!
>
>
>
> The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot
> find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must
> say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do
> not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there
> feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here
> to find a middle ground.
>
>
>
> Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter
> codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes
> as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something
> that might happen.
>
>
>
> Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal
> should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could
> apply for a TLD at any time.
>
>
>
> My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a
> country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the
> list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks
> like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must
> have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc
> that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated
> as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges
> for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any
> other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets
> have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new
> gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the
> contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As
> long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as
> ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process -
> https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved.
> The take-it-or-leave-it approach.
>
>
>
> What do you think?
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Timo Võhmar
>
> Arendusjuht / Head of development
>
>
>
> Eesti Interneti SA  / Estonian Internet Foundation
>
> Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia
>
> Tel + 372 727 1004
>
> www.internet.ee
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160704/eb22e643/attachment-0001.html>