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

Thu Jan 26 14:33:38 UTC 2017

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 <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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20170126/03a1851e/attachment-0001.html>