[Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes

Fri Jun 3 09:02:10 UTC 2016

Hi Alexander,

Thank you for your comment. But that is exactly what I was proposing adding
alpha 3 codes to the same track with alpha 2 codes. That is with 2 round
release. So for the 2nd round where three letters (and full names for that
matter) would get released to general public as gTLDs the process could
follow gTLD application process. Of course the alternative here would be
that there is no 2 separate rounds for releasing these domains and from the
start anyone can have these with the consent and approval of the government
of the related country, but even in that case it could be solved depending
on who is the applicant - for example if it is the current 2 letter ccTLD
manager or some other government founded or controlled organisation the
ccTLD process could be used and on other cases the gTLD. I can imagine this
being much more complicated than things are now - just a little bit :).

My point is that GAC members (the governments) would not like to see their
national TLD not being a subject of local regulations - that is unless they
decide to release the respective TLD for general/commercial use. We as a
ccTLD would also hate to follow ICANNs current regulations - the personal
data privacy does not meet ours, I do not know how the requirement of
sharing all the registry data with ICANN complies with EU privacy laws and
upcoming NIS directive if at all - I have my doubts on that, the amount of
personal data required to collect is nonsense etc. But that is totally
different topic and just one opinion.

In response to your rhetorical question about geo TLDs, I do think that
these could have or should have been handled as ccTLDs as well, but the 1st
round is in the past now and this does not have to mean that everything has
to follow the same track and nothing can be changed or improved - doesn't
it?

I might be too idealistic - but the choice between gTLD and ccTLD tracks is
done once for these domains and I cannot imagine deviation from the geo TLD
path being a deal breaker here. In my mind it would even help.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development

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

On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20160603/0b5c7584/attachment-0001.html>