[Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

Thu Jun 2 13:01:54 UTC 2016

Dear Timo,

Just a quick note. In my mind the main difference between a ccTLD and a gTLD is that a ccTLD is run by local laws, nationally, ref RFC 1591. A gTLD has a contract with ICANN and is under US law.
This might not seem important, but especially in case of conflicts, it is.

Kind regards,
Annebeth

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>> on behalf of Timo Võhmar
Date: Thursday 2 June 2016 at 14:43
To: "ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org>"
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

Hi Grigory,

As a newcomer to this list I am not aware of the details of your proposal. But reading this few questions pop in mind. Who and how will maintaint and update the statuses of the TLDs? Is it substantive or formal classification? For example Google considers 19 of ccTLDs as generic (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/62399?hl=en&rd=1) because how these TLDs are operated and used.

But most importantly my question is why would an internet user care if it is cc or gTLD? There is absolutely no difference in my mind. And this is more and more true for registrants as well. At the moment the only real difference is the google search algorithm and there also the user location keeps getting smaller and smaller part in the ratings calculations. So technically I do not see any difference every TLD is what the operator/manager is making of it with their policies, practices and marketing.

I might not see what you are seeing here and thus might be off with my questions. Sorry if that is the case.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development

Eesti Interneti SA  / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee>

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Grigori Saghyan <gregor at arminco.com<mailto:gregor at arminco.com>> wrote:
Dear  Alexander, All
As we see, there are lot of exemptions, various approaches, different arguments how to use country and territory names as gTLD.
Current discussion is related to very small part off the problem - how to use  3166 alpha-3 code element. But there are lot of other country and territory names - official name, short name of the country (may be territory also)  etc. - Study Group have prepared a document on that. Discussion on each item will take lot of time  - as we see it on 3166 alpha-3 code. In this regards I want to remind my proposal - to underline  these all C&T related names in the user browser, possible to do it using different colors (example - SSL certificate indication in the address bar of the browser). In that case end user will have additional information - is it a gTLD or it is a ccTLD. Of course, it may take some time to describe end users the meaning of this difference. In that case each country will be able to deal with related names as they want - Germany can continue his policy, Macao can sell this name of keep it for own usage etc. Technically it is not a problem - how to implement this approach.

Grigori Saghyan
ISOC.AM<http://ISOC.AM>
On 01.06.2016 18:59, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hello Timo,

I welcome someone stepping forward, too,  announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should  deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element?

So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that:

1.       Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator)

2.       Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User!

You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here:

·         Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: <http://www.irgendwas.deu> www.irgendwas.deu<http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either.

·         So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being:

o   MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory).

o   LIE (Liechtenstein):  37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like <http://www.911.lie> www.911.lie<http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie<http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code.

So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous.

There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us?

Thanks,

Alexander Schubert

From:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar
Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org>
Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

Hello everybody,

I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision.

It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate.

For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step.

We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round.

The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case.

After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well.

In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward.

All questions and comments are very welcome.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development

Eesti Interneti SA  / Estonian Internet Foundation
<http://www.internet.ee>www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee>

_______________________________________________
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/20160602/1565ac21/attachment-0001.html>