[Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

Mon Feb 6 11:50:48 UTC 2017

Dear Timo,

No, I am not creating “alternative facts” here, I quoted RFC 1591 verbatim and highlighted the relevant portion in red:

“There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).  

  These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), 

   and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166.”

“Two letter codes” – not “three letter codes”. There is ISO-3166 Alpha-2 (the “two letter codes of ISO 3166) and there is ISO-3166 Alpha-3 (the “three letter codes of ISO 3166); and RFC 1591 CLEARLY specifies that it shall be the “two letter country codes from ISO-3166.”

So you would need to rewrite RFC 1591 in order to allow non-two letter string based TLD’s being ccTLDs. Good luck with that. 

You missed the Helsinki meeting (even if it was only a 2.5h ferry ride away) – you might want to come to Copenhagen and present your case to the GAC. I am happy to introduce you to the Chair of the GAC and the Chair of the GAC working group dealing with territory names; I know these both well since over a decade. You might be surprised about their opinion of completely destroying the 32 year old order of visual separation of the ccTLD and the gTLD worlds. I understand that ccTLD operators want to expand their universe. But all that would happen is that all of a sudden their most valuable asset (the exclusivity of the character of ccTLDs – namely being two letter TLDs and hence intuitively separable from the gTLD world for ALL Internet users globally) would vanish. It’s like putting a small cut into a fabric – and then having to watch how it slowly destroying the sail that provided the power to strongly move ahead. To put it more drastic: It would be the END of ccTLDs. I am a gTLD guy – so if you want to destroy ccTLDs: Hey, just go for it. Fine with me. No objection whatsoever. I am just not sure the Internet User, GAC or the other ccTLD operators lightly agree with it.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee] 
Sent: Monday, February 06, 2017 11:47 AM
To: alexander at schubert.berlin
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

Hi Alexander,

I do not agree with your way of bending facts. The fact is, like you referred that "God" said, that this is the list of gTLDs  (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT) and there is also a list of ccTLDs corresponding to the list of ISO 3166. The separation here is not specified as the length of the TLD but the meaning - country specific vs for general use. All other interpretations are subjective interpretations of the fact. So my question here is if it was possible to extend the list of domains for generic or general use how is extending the list of TLDs for government or national community use different and all of a sudden against everything holy in the internet. So I continue to stand behind the opinion that we should avoid such allegations.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> > wrote:

Timo,

Sorry, but please study RFC 1591 <tel:1591>  written in 1994 by Jon Postel (think of him as “God” for the DNS community – which would be a clear understatement) himself: rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt <http://rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt> 
It clearly specifies:

“There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).  

  These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), 

   and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166.”

This order has been never once disrupted – all that happened is that more gTLDs were ADDED: Their character remained unchanged: Longer than 2 letters! That 2-letter TLDs are ccTLDs is not just a “long standing principle” – it is THE ONLY principle since the inception of the DNS in 1984. Postel thought it was “unlikely” that more TLD’s would be added – but “unlikely” is not “can never be”; and evidently it happened. But the strict separation of ccTLDs and gTLDs remained intact since the inception of the DNS.

Thanks,

Alexander

From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar at internet.ee> ] 
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no> >
Cc: alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> ; ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> 

Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

Hi all,

Also agree with Alexander's comments. 

In addition I would also like to point out that in number of places ie page 22,  page 23 etc there is a claim "...is not consistent with or supported by the simple and long-standing principle that 2-character codes are ccTLDs and 3+-character codes are gTLDs." There is no such long-lasting principle. There was a principle that 2 letters were country codes, five 3 letter generics and one infrastructure TLD (.arpa). That was extended in 2000 with 7 new TLDs. Principle here is closed list of gTLDs and as many 2 letter country codes as there are countries. But that went out of the window with the first round of new gTLDs. Typing + after number 3, stating that whole string space starting from 3 letters was designed for use as gTLD and saying that this has always been how internet was made is ... lets just say wrong. I suggest to use more intelligent arguments when describing different opinions of this group.

The whole 5.2.6 paragraph is very painful read clearly written in free for all spirit as I see only how all arguments hinting an option for anything else than dropping the protection and giving unlimited access to iso 3 letter country codes are criticized. Was this really so one sided discussion in this group? I was not here at that time, so I really do not know. But after reading this, it is amazing to find out that there is no recommendation to give.

I see clear recommendation in 5.2.6 and conflicting conclusion in 5.3.

Best Regards,

Timo Võhmar

On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at uninett.no> > wrote:

Hi Alexander and all,

I agree with your input, Alexander.

Kind regards

Annebeth Lange

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert
Reply-To: "alexander at schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander at schubert.berlin> "
Date: Wednesday 25 January 2017 at 23:32
To: "ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> "

Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

Hi,

Page 21 the three preferences how alpha-3 codes could be handled:

1) support for opening all ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to eligiblity as gTLDs  (eligibility is misspelled - and the sentence makes no sense! Probably meant as: "...... to be eligible as gTLDs"?)

I do not see any more the option that has already garnered a LOT of support: Treating the 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes like ALL other designators in the ISO 3166 (e.g. “BAR” or “TATA”): In the existing AG for ALL 3166 listed elements there is a requirement that the relevant Government authority has to sign a letter of non-objection! 

So I suggest we either add to 1) that OF COURSE the already established AG requirement for a letter of non-objection would be triggered for alpha-3 codes as well!

Or we have a 4th preference.
Indeed: Annex D provides for FOUR possibilities discussed by the SOs/ACs. 

On page 22 it says:

“Supporting to open all 3-character codes as gTLDs:
•             There is no sovereign or other ownership right of governments in country or territory names, including ISO 3166-1 codes, so there is no legal basis for government veto power on allocation of these codes as gTLDs”

Not true! The AG has a provision whereby ALL ISO 3166 elements need a letter of non-objection of the Government! See “.bar” or “.tata”! Obviously if already a tiny mini municipality like the TATA region (15,000 people, all desert, no industry, but listed in ISO 3166) requires such a letter then OF COURSE a 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 code requires it as well!

Thanks,

Alexander Schubert

-----Original Message-----
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org>  [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:26 PM
To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl <mailto:jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> >
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom at icann.org> 
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

Dear Jaap,

Thank you for your review and feedback. Staff will review the formatting and content of the frames. 

Kind regards,

Emily

On 25/01/17 04:48, "Jaap Akkerhuis" < <mailto:jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

     Emily Barabas writes:

     > Please find attached a revised version of the CWG-UCTN Interim Paper.

     > This version incorporates language to reflect a lack of consensus on

     > recommendation 3.

     > 

     > 

     > Kindly provide any final revisions or comments on the Interim Paper by

     > Friday 3 February.

    Dear Emily,

    I did a quick scan and noticed that something went with the two

    "Frames" about the ISO 3166. They now look as a single one to me. But

    apart from that, the first one seemed to have a garbled sentences here

    and there. Note the start of the second section, to quote:

                The ISO body responsible for the standard 3166 is the

                Technical Committee 46, systems etc. and as non-current,

                dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical

                interest (ISO/TC 46/WG2).

    And there are more of these.

    I will have a nore close read later, but these things really needs to

    be clean up.

    Regards,

                jaap

_______________________________________________

Ctn-crosscom mailing list

 <mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom> 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

_______________________________________________
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/20170206/a16b84bf/attachment-0001.html>