[Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes

[Greg Shatan]

I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be
reserved for potential ccTLD use.  I thought it was worth raising the
question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo
on this point.  (Also, nobody was speaking up....)  It appears that this
concept retains broad support.

That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if
his statements are factually incorrect or illogical.  Specifically, it is
both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands."
There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands
have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other
applicants have less or more interest or desire).  Intentionally or not,
using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere
that could be quite counterproductive.  There's no reason to invent a
disagreement or rift that doesn't exist.

I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask
themselves the question posed by Alexander above.  There's no good reason
to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are
plenty of good reasons not to do so.

Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad
support from all sectors, including many from the brand community.

Greg

On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <
alexander at schubert.berlin> wrote:

> I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
>
> ·         We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says
> so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to
> revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
>
> ·         We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be
> confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based
> on the gTLD “.11”!
>
> ·         What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10
> numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really
> desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such
> as “.3m” (3m.com) or “.f1” (f1.com). How many would that be? A dozen?
>
>
>
> On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is
> non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something
> different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns:
> they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level!
> Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
>
>
>
> If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands
> COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character
> number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member
> and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2
> characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they
> only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much
> confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or
> 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
>
> If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you
> support this notion: please voice your support!
>
>
> Thanks,
>
>
>
> Alexander
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> *From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces at icann.org]
> *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM
> *To:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character
> codes
>
>
>
> Dear colleagues,
>
>
>
> Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now
> to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and
> Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
>
>
>
> The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for
> that conclusion, was:
>
>
>
> "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter
> codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the
> reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard
> established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and
> widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
>
>
>
> Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-
> attached/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf
>
>
>
> Kind regards,
>
>
>
> Heather Forrest
>
> _______________________________________________
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list
> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5/attachments/20180118/919198b9/attachment.html>