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

Thu Jan 26 12:54:20 UTC 2017

Hi all, 

I also agree with Alexander's (and Timo's) comments.

I would also like to apologize for my very limited input to this CTN WG during the last half of year due to work related and private life issues. I hope I can participate more actively from now on!

Kind regards,
Sanna Sahlman (.fi)

-----Original Message-----
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar
Sent: 26. tammikuuta 2017 14:05
To: Annebeth Lange
Cc: 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 <mailto: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 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>
	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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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
	https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom> 