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

Mon Feb 6 14:17:21 UTC 2017

Thank you Alexander,

Not to make this a long argument here, I just would like to point out that
you keep leaving aside the point that in the referred RFC there is a closed
list of gTLDs that are all only three letters long. In that context the
ccTLDs are as closed as gTLD list, country codes list is just a bit longer
and handled by ISO organisation. So pointing your focus only on the ccTLD
part is what is misleading. For some reason it was OK to extend the list of
gTLDs and even go beyond three letter limit without the fear of wrath of
"god" but it is not for internationally recognized country codes.

I have had an honor of acquaintance with the chair and some of the GAC
board members and GAC members as well. And I have heard quite a different
story from what you are trying to say here. But arguing about what GAC
thinks is a bit far away from what we are trying to achieve here. There is
no need for demagoguery. The power of ccTLD does not stand only on the
number of chars in the TLD - yes short is better, but do not forget the
meaning, history, recall, SEO etc. But again, lets leave this to be a
decision for the countries and national internet communities whether and
how they want to use such codes and calculate the risks on how this would
affect their current ccTLD. As an internet user, member of Estonian
internet community, citizen of Estonia, representative of Estonian ccTLD
and government I am not worried at all, so do not be either.

Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 1:50 PM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> 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> wrote:
>
> Timo,
>
>
>
> Sorry, but please study RFC 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
> 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]
> *Sent:* Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:05 PM
> *To:* Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange at uninett.no>
> *Cc:* alexander at schubert.berlin; 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> wrote:
>
> Hi Alexander and all,
>
>
>
> I agree with your input, Alexander.
>
>
>
> *Kind regards*
>
> *Annebeth Lange*
>
>
>
>
>
> *From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert
> *Reply-To: *"alexander at schubert.berlin"
> *Date: *Wednesday 25 January 2017 at 23:32
> *To: *"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@
> icann.org <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>
> Cc: 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" <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
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20170206/71788072/attachment-0001.html>