<div dir="ltr"><div>Alexander and group,</div><div><br></div>It looks like it already is a dialogue - which is really unfortunate.<div><br></div><div>A domain name becomes ccTLD when it is delegated as such, while on the reserved list or just not registered it is just a string. So nothing need elevating here. It is just a matter of approach - how certain names are delegated - under which ruleset. If a country/government wants to use a 3 letter (or country name for future arguments sake) to achieve its own goals why shouldn't it have a control over how it is done? So in that case the name becomes ccTLD. If the government does not see value in the domain name and signs it off to some company it becomes a gTLD. How or why is modifying ccTLD delegation regulation different than adding exceptions to gTLD AGB for geographical names. It is a question of how to motivate governments to decide if they want to use the 3 letter ISO country code or give it up for general and generic use. ccTLD track is just separate track of doing things and it is already there and it works. So what is the problem here - is it about money? Are you afraid that Macau will make easy money of their code and just because of them you deny control to everyone. Or are the few out of more than 250 ccTLDs that operate similarly to gTLDs reason to think that ccTLD is no good?<br></div><div><br></div><div>A lot of rhetorical questions. But the main question remains - does this group have any energy left for discussions and trying to reach some proposal?</div><div><br></div><div>Best Regards,</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail_signature" data-smartmail="gmail_signature"><div dir="ltr"><div><div dir="ltr"><div>Timo Võhmar</div><div>Arendusjuht / Head of development</div><div><br></div><div>Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation</div><div>Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia</div><div>Tel + 372 727 1004</div><div><a href="http://www.internet.ee" target="_blank">www.internet.ee</a></div></div></div></div></div></div>
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Alexander Schubert <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div lang="EN-US" link="blue" vlink="purple"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Hi group,<br><br>before this turns into a dialog between Timo and me:<br><br>Any suggestions or opinions on the points brought forward by Timo or me? Does anyone here believe that GAC would galvanize around the suggestion to elevate a small subset of 3 letter based TLDs to the official status of ccTLDs – while 99% remain open to become gTLDs (there are about 200 blocked 3 letter codes in ISO 3166 Alpha 3 – but there are over 17,000 three letter combinations in the alphabet). Is there any support in this group for the notion of allocating ISO 3166 Alpha 3 based three letter TLDs in the same way as ccTLDs? That is:<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Without the submission of an application to ICANN<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Without application fees<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Outside of the main track in a wholly isolated silo<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Without ICANN transaction fees<u></u><u></u></span></p><p><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:Symbol"><span>·<span style="font:7.0pt "Times New Roman""> </span></span></span><u></u><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Without being bound to ICANN policy – instead only controlled (or not controlled) by the relevant Government?<br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">What if Macau claims .mac – then starts a bidder war between Apple and Estee Lauder (cosmetics brand MAC) – and eventually hands over the TLD to the high bidder: No ICANN vetted restrictions or policy applying whatsoever? Keep in mind the examples of .co, .tv, .me, .md, .cc, .am and .fm as well.<br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Thanks,<u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Alexander Schubert<br><br><br><br><u></u><u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"><u></u> <u></u></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> Timo Võhmar [mailto:<a href="mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee" target="_blank">timo.vohmar@internet.ee</a>] <br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, July 04, 2016 2:21 PM<span class=""><br><b>To:</b> alexander@schubert.berlin<br><b>Cc:</b> <a href="mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org" target="_blank">ctn-crosscom@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!<u></u><u></u></span></span></p><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></font></span><div><span class="HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><div><p class="MsoNormal">Alexander, <u></u><u></u></p></div></font></span><div><div class="h5"><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><p class="MsoNormal">Just to reply on some of your notes<u></u><u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">We seem to live in a bit different information fields, because I keep hearing statements from gNSO group that ISO 3166 3 means nothing in context of TLDs or even that alpha 2 does not make sense for TLDs. For me it looks like gunning for no restrictions. Of course that might just be to create an illusion of compromise while going for the current AGB version as it is. But as you self pointed out - that wording was agreed only for the last round with intent to look things over before next. So that brings me back to my point of view - alpha 3 codes in essence are country codes identically to to alpha 2 codes and should be handled (delegated) in same way as long as the government of that country is in control of it.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">I do not get your point on confusion - who gets confused and why? For the internet user there is no difference what so ever if the site is under ccTLD or gTLD. Registrants need to present different kind of data already regardless of the TLD type - different requirement on nameservers, contact parameters and details etc - registrars usually handle this quite well, so do not see the added confusion here as well. cc in ccTLD stands for country code not the number of chars in the domain name. 2 and 3 letter ISO codes are representing a country and are identical in that manner. There are already two separate tracks how gTLD and ccTLD are delgated so the question is which track needs updating. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The geo names regulation in the last round ensured that local authority had power to decide who can manage the TLD but nothing else - TLD manager has a contract with ICANN and basically can do what ever with it as long as it is in conjunction with ICANN's regulations. I might be missing something here, so please correct me if I am wrong. <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">So yes I will continue to lobby that 2 and 3 letter country codes should be delegated the same way, but there should be a process for the country to decide on the level of control they want to have - full control as ccTLD being on one side and almost no control as gTLD on the other, and something to motivate the governments to make the decision. I am very much open for discussion over the ccTLD approach - but I have not seen any GAC members holding their heads because of this and why would they hate to have control over things.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><br clear="all"><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Timo Võhmar<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Arendusjuht / Head of development<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Tel <a href="tel:%2B%20372%20727%201004" value="+3727271004" target="_blank">+ 372 727 1004</a><u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.internet.ee" target="_blank">www.internet.ee</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p><div><p class="MsoNormal">On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Alexander Schubert <<a href="mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin" target="_blank">alexander@schubert.berlin</a>> wrote:<u></u><u></u></p><blockquote style="border:none;border-left:solid #cccccc 1.0pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 6.0pt;margin-left:4.8pt;margin-right:0cm"><div><div><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">Timo,<br><br>a few notes to this:</span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">1.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">You state that <b><i><span style="color:#2e75b6">“The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.”</span></i></b><br>That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded!</span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">2.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: <b><i><span style="color:#2e75b6">“… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”!<br></span></i></b>So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round).</span><u></u><u></u></p><p><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">3.</span><span style="font-size:7.0pt"> </span><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine.<br><br>Thanks,<br><br>Alexander Schubert</span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal" style="margin-bottom:12.0pt"><u></u> <u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> </span><u></u><u></u></p><p class="MsoNormal"><b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif">From:</span></b><span style="font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif"> <a href="mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org</a> [mailto:<a href="mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org" target="_blank">ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org</a>] <b>On Behalf Of </b>Timo Võhmar<br><b>Sent:</b> Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM<br><b>To:</b> <a href="mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org" target="_blank">ctn-crosscom@icann.org</a><br><b>Subject:</b> [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!</span><u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Hi all!<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank!<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - <a href="https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation" target="_blank">https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation</a> - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach.<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">What do you think?<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Best Regards,<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><div><div><div><div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Timo Võhmar<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Arendusjuht / Head of development<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia<u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal">Tel <a href="tel:%2B%20372%20727%201004" target="_blank">+ 372 727 1004</a> <u></u><u></u></p></div><div><p class="MsoNormal"><a href="http://www.internet.ee" target="_blank">www.internet.ee</a><u></u><u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div><p class="MsoNormal"><br>_______________________________________________<br>Ctn-crosscom mailing list<br><a href="mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org" target="_blank">Ctn-crosscom@icann.org</a><br><a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom</a><u></u><u></u></p></blockquote></div><p class="MsoNormal"><u></u> <u></u></p></div></div></div></div></div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Ctn-crosscom mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org">Ctn-crosscom@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom</a><br></blockquote></div><br></div></div>