[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Agenda for Work Track 5: ­ Geographic Names at the Top Level, Wednesday, 04 April 2018 14:00 UTC

[Alexander Schubert]

Hi WT 5,

 

It seems that these ideas are floated right now in regard to the geo strings that were exempted in 2012 (ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and territory names):

 

1.       The 3 to 4 year long discussion of the “CWG on country & territory names” was fruitless – and they recommended the GNSO should do the job. The GNSO formed WT 5 to do the job. Now this WT 5 throws in the towel BEFORE it even really began to discuss the topic: we simply “keep the status quo” – and tell a nation like Spain, Turkey or Israel: “Sorry, we need to protect you from applying for you country name as gTLD!”
So like the CWG we would just make no policy recommendations – and leave the names unavailable. Selling it as “predictable”. Wow. Really?

2.       We suddenly destroy the definition of the ccTLD – and kill the one and only USP ccTLDs have: that they are 2 character TLDs. Great – why not simply dissolving the entire ccNSO and incorporate it back into the gNSO? Why then not starting to allocate two letter string as gTLD – as future nations always could use their 3 letter code instead? To make SOME non-2-letter strings ccTLDs is the beginning of the end of ccTLDs – which I think would be sad. Why would the ccNSO allow their own decapitation? 

 

I think both ideas are valid and it is OK to “float” them. But they are not really workable solutions. We need to define a method how to apply for these names. Obviously as a bare minimum the relevant Government has to sign off – so they can influence the policies – or if they dislike the policies just deny the letter of support. I myself would lobby that also the relevant ccTLD manager has to sign off – so they can either be RSP or otherwise weigh in! The hurdles could be very HIGH – but there must be a way for a nation like Qatar to make a “.qatar” to represent the country, Government and tourism. 

What I would very much caution of is to follow the suggestion that each country has a right for the first bite – and if they don’t the string is available for the general public. That would be NOT in the interest of the people living in that territory! 

Thanks,

Alexander Schubert

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180403/df0704a7/attachment.html>