[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Alexander Schubert alexander at schubert.berlin
Mon Aug 13 13:52:44 UTC 2018

Dear Jorge,


While I usually am in agreement with your well-thought-out contributions in the larger PDP discussions and especially here in WT5: I this one case I am cautiously voicing objection!

You state that “3-letter country codes are intuitively very closely linked to the country at stake”.


I would like to put that into perspective. Because what do we really try to archive here? Whom do we protect, what are the risks? Yes, in very few use cases SOME Alpha-3 codes are being used. Albeit very rarely. And I have not ever seen ANY usage for Germany – undoubtedly an important country when it comes to ccTLDs (as .de is by far the largest ccTLD zone). I really doubt that you find many Germans which would know what “DEU” might stand for – if presented as a gTLD (e.g. if you show someone  <http://www.hotels.deu> www.hotels.deu; and asked them what they ASSUME the website might present, then a very tiny percentage of Germans would guess “Hotels in Germany”, and close to ZERO people would guess that correctly outside of Germany). And your country Switzerland? The code is “CHE”. Google “CHE” – and try to find ANY webpage that is affiliated with Switzerland. Honestly: Even I wouldn’t know – and I pay CLOSE attention to this stuff. People associate “SUI” with Switzerland.


But even IF somebody would be able to correctly associate a 3 letter code (e.g.  CAN with Canada or LUX with Luxembourg) – are these really much in use? Would a domain  <http://www.hotels.lux> www.hotels.lux really be affiliated with Luxembourg, and not with “Luxury Hotels”? We are talking about gTLD namespaces here – and gTLDs do not present themselves standalone; they are ALWAYS represented in a full URL only! And in that specific use case I very much doubt that the average Internet user would be able to create much affiliation with the country.

What really disturbs me is that we pay so much attention to “protecting” codes that aren’t really understood&used by most, and that have only a very loose affiliation once presented in a URL. If we allowed to apply for these 3-letter codes then obviously the affiliated Government would have to sign off – like they already have to for other ISO 3166 elements such as country subdivisions in ISO 3166-2. So there WOULD be already AMPLE “protection”. But all the same time we can’t agree at all to extend such protection to “sizeable city”-names! But sizeable cities are usually WELL KNOWN – they are known to ALL citizens of the respective country, and in most cases even well known to the well informed global audience. City names are USED a lot and on daily basis! People do affiliate with their sizeable city name; but usually not at all with their 3-letter country code! To me it seems we are GROSSLY “overprotecting” these 3-letter codes; while in the same time we keep a loophole in place that allows anybody to snatch away a big city name by just claiming “non-geo use”. We are grossly INCONSISTENT here. It would be consistent if we would treat 3-letter country codes AND sizeable cities just the same way as capital cities and country subdivisions (ISO 3166-2): You may apply – but you need governmental support.

In that regard: If we really “ban” applications for ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code element & country name based strings: then let’s PLEASE protect sizeable city names a bit better as well: as well as we already protect country subdivisions in ISO 3166-2.


We are acting like somebody who is installing triple locks at the back door – but leaves the front door not only WITHOUT any locks, but wide open. Doesn’t make any sense. We are afraid to death that some lunatic might try to apply for “.deu” (I can ASSURE you that NOBODY would be so stupid – even when .de is GROSSLY over-populated with 16 Million registrations: .deu would be dead on arrival); but we aren’t afraid at all about somebody squatting on “.shanghai” (24 Million people) be simply declaring “non-geo use”; thus evading ANY control by the city Government). 









From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org] On Behalf Of Jorge.Cancio at bakom.admin.ch
Sent: Montag, 13. August 2018 15:44
To: javrua at gmail.com
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.


Hello all


For those not attending the San Juan Meeting or not recalling it, it could be worthwhile that Secretariat could circulate a short summary of the rationale(s) that were put forward and discussed regarding 3-letter-country codes (and other country names). 


We are now at consensus call stage, but this should not mean that everyone has to reiterate all arguments again, especially when there was a f2f meeting in San Juan and conclusions were drawn from it by the co-leads.


One thought in this discussion which is key to me (and which I mentioned in San Juan) is that 3-letter country codes are intuitively very closely linked to the country at stake, eg we use the three-letter code, inter alia, for our passports. Connected to this is the thought that such TLDs should be subject to applicable policies developed by the corresponding national communities, similarly to what happens with the 2-letter-country-codes, following in essence a principle of subsidiarity. 


In San Juan the feeling was that this requires a new kind of policy-making forum within ICANN, as the GNSO deals with generic TLDs that are subject to a quite thorough global policy framework. 


I feel these ideas are still valid and the many voices in support of them in San Juan should be recalled and recorded.


Best regards






Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> > Im Auftrag von Javier Rua
Gesendet: Freitag, 10. August 2018 01:53
An: Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> >
Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 
Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.




I see you support keeping the current status of two letter-letter country/territory codes.  I think that’s in line with general WT thinking and I feel has broad support.


On the other hand, like some other WT members you mention preference for a future policy that’s a bit more liberal or “pro delegation” in regards 3 letter codes that are geonames, limiting the possible applicants to -governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and “public interest entities”.


Could you expand on these “public interest entities”? Could you suggest language in the pertinent “Recommendation” for WT consideration?



Javier Rúa-Jovet



twitter: @javrua

skype: javier.rua1



On Aug 8, 2018, at 8:50 PM, Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> > wrote:

Dear Annebeth


I fully support Recommendation #1 AS IS

no changes there


I don't support the recommendation on ISO 3 letter (forgot the number). ISO 3 letter codes should be delegated to Govs, ccTLD managers or any other interested PUBLIC INTEREST entities


Don't know if this answers your question


Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> 

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000



El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió:

Hi Carlos 


Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don't think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs?


Kind regards,



Annebeth B Lange

Special Adviser International Policy


Phone: +47 959 11 559

Mail: annebeth.lange at norid.no <mailto:annebeth.lange at norid.no> 



8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> >:

My comments to today's call:

1. "The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names" This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested.   A shorter more concise version? A more "liberal" version? How about: "ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories."  Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 "reserving ALL two character letter letter" combinations-  can be enhanced.  I wonder if it's truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can't think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward.

2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation


3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social  elements, ,like Apache Nation


Best regards




Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

carlosraul at gutierrez.se <mailto:carlosraul at gutierrez.se> 

+506 8837 7176

Aparatado 1571-1000



El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió:

Dear Work Track members,


Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call.


Kind regards,



From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org> > on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin at brandregistrygroup.org <mailto:martin at brandregistrygroup.org> >
Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45
To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> " <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> >
Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.


Dear Work Track members,


Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC:


1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates
2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan
3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names
4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms
5. AOB


On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached.


As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6: <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_default_files_file_field-2Dfile-2Dattach_annex-2D1-2Dgnso-2Dwg-2Dguidelines-2D18jun18-2Den.pdf&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=mBQzlSaM6eYCHFBU-v48zs-QSrjHB0aWmHuE4X4drzI&m=NVtIpaem-VqCNPYPOoZhv9ofczsIO-e3-mM3UoaoTMA&s=g15pYjxotpxtjftphXYKDMOR0bso7mS5i2CXTIVfcww&e=> https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gnso-wg-guidelines-18jun18-en.pdf [gnso.icann.org].


If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email  <mailto:gnso-secs at icann.org> gnso-secs at icann.org.


Kind regards,


WT5 Co-Leads

Annebeth Lange

Javier Rua

Olga Cavalli

Martin Sutton






The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited.



Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 

<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf>

<Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx>

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 

Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org> 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180813/dcbbf446/attachment-0001.html>

More information about the Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list