[Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

Thu Jun 2 13:55:20 UTC 2016

Hi Timo,

Thanks!

Well. At the moment there are two tracks to delegate TLD’s:

*         You acquire a ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 code and then request delegation as ccTLD

*         You apply in one of the following new gTLD rounds

Adding new delegation tracks will most likely lead to only one thing: Confusion and delay. Because where do you draw the line? Why shouldn’t .ankara be treated like a ccTLD as well – being the capital of Turkey? What’s with .provence? 

The more levels of complication we add the more unlikely it is that we get what we want. I might sound like a coward and pragmatic – but when it comes to the GAC and gNSO you have to be. 

Thanks,

Alexander

From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar
Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:39 PM
To: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

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 <http://www.internet.ee> 

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto: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>  [mailto: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 <mailto: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 <http://www.internet.ee> 

On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto: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 <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 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 <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

_______________________________________________
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/20160602/66abb1b7/attachment-0001.html>