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

Thu Jan 26 12:04:46 UTC 2017

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
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20170126/62f35e9e/attachment.html>