[Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

Thu Jun 2 13:38:40 UTC 2016

Hi Alexander,

I agree with your point on governments/GAC not wanting to give up the
control over the 3 letter codes and full names for that matter. So in that
sense I admit the wishful thinking there.

Also thank you Annebeth for your comment on the formal difference of gTLD
and ccTLD. On that matter I continue to be in position that 3-letter codes
as well as full country names should be treated as ccTLDs because I cannot
imagine a government that would be fond of idea that their national TLD
would be subject of ICANN's and US regulations instead of local ones.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development

Eesti Interneti SA  / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> Hi Timo,
>
>
>
> We run into a classic policy problematic:
>
> The realm of what makes “sense” vs the realm of real life demands. Look at
> ANY issue: Abortion, Immigration, Surveillance: It all boils down to two
> fractions that each have their arguments and perceived needs to protect
> this or that group (e.g. mother vs unborn life, etc).
>
>
>
> I think it is not our job to create the most sense making suggestion.
> Because in all likelihood the GAC will just not like – and consequently
> trash it. If we force a Chinese territory to choose between becoming an
> applicant for .mac or see its arch enemy USA snacking it up to be used with
> one of their tech giants: China will explode. You just can’t do that to a
> nation. It must be done the other way around: Without the express
> permission of China (Macao in this case) no one will be able to get the
> delegation of .mac. Basta. And I personally know a number of GAC members
> who would go to any length to defend that stance. The ISO  3166 alpha 3
> codes are seen as useless for most nations. They are either so small they
> just do not need another ccTLD-like gTLD – or the code has no resemblance
> at all! Like “.deu” – I assure you that 95% of average Germans presented
> with “deu” would not be able to guess what that should represent. And we
> are talking about a 82 Million nation with the largest ccTLD (17 Million).
>
> So when we make maximum demands (like yours) we will have a predictable
> outcome: Rejection and failure. There is a current AGB. It DOES deny the
> allocation of ISO 3166 and territory names – WE want a lift on that ban. A
> change. If we ask too much: The change will just not happen. I have
> participated in gNSO work as soon as 2006 – trust me: You must be more
> patient. ESPECIALLY with Governments. For both: .berlin and .gay we had to
> do A LOT of lobbying. For many, many years. There were forces trying to
> trash both.
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander Schubert
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:
> ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar
> *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:59 AM
> *To:* ctn-crosscom at icann.org
> *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
>
>
>
> Hi Alexander,
>
>
>
> Thank you for your comments! I think that making 3-letter country codes
> available should be done outside of the next gTLD round and on the same
> conditions at 2-letter country codes are now (
> http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation). This gives wider time range
> for countries to make their plans and makes it more realistic to achive the
> abitious plans of realeasing the rest on 3rd gTLD round. Setting some price
> tag on the application that could but from our - small country and even
> smaller registry - point of view is hopefully not set as high as the gTLD
> applications, would help in avoiding delegations without no good reason.
>
>
>
> I do not share your view on the seriousness of the problems you pointed
> out.
>
> "Countries" lacking interest on delegating 3-letter codes is good for gTLD
> community and puts some substance into the proposal. Whether "the
> countries" should have some saying on who gets the delegation of the
> country code after the release for general gTLD registration is a subject
> for debate. I do not see this absolutely necessary. But this can happen
> only after "the countries" have had reasonable time to decide if they want
> to user their priority.
>
> I also think that it is not necessary or even smart for ICANN to attempt
> to control the reasoning why anyone wants the delegation. Who is to decide
> that Macao is too small to secure .mac for any other reason than denying
> the option for the Apple.
>
>
>
> Best Regards,
>
>
> Timo Võhmar
>
> Arendusjuht / Head of development
>
>
>
> Eesti Interneti SA  / Estonian Internet Foundation
>
> www.internet.ee
>
>
>
> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert <
> alexander at schubert.berlin> 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: 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 www.911.lie or 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] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar
> *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM
> *To:* 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
>
> 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/20160602/bb2abb7d/attachment-0001.html>