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

Thu Jan 18 14:43:19 UTC 2018

Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander

We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of
all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of
what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So
what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between
different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved
for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple
times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the
same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some
two letter combination.

cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of
label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately
we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO
country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available
for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a
compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered.

Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything
with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the
new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change
the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect
and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes
is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose.

And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has
or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code
TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for
ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that
there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about
how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does
registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world
will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under
ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs.

Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution
for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way
to lift the ban from country labels.

Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry

On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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-atta
>> ched/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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180118/516868ac/attachment.html>