[CPWG] [GTLD-WG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

[Greg Shatan]

Here is an email (further down) I just sent to the WT5 list.  In the
context of this discussion, I agree with Carlos that ISO 3166 3-letter
codes shouldn't be reserved from delegation.  The bold move would be making
them available in this round, in some fashion to be determined, but it
seems we don't have the time to give the options the attention they
deserve.  If we don't go that far, we could make some statement encouraging
future groups to do something, but I have become wary of the idea of trying
to prejudice that future discussion, since we don't have time to give the
options the detailed discussion they deserve.

I've considered Carlos recommendation:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes
submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public
interest/public benefit entities*.”

I have several problems with this.  First, why give ccTLD managers a role
here?  I presume Carlos means the "relevant ccTLD managers", but even then,
the relationship between ccTLD manager and government varies wildly from
ccTLD to ccTLD.  I don't want to open a discussion about what's right or
wrong about that (that is truly outside our remit), but there is no reason
to replicate that witeh 3-letter codes.  Second, where these 3-letter
strings have other applications, why eliminate these from consideration?
And if you don't why prejudice them and privilege governmental
authorities?  Some of these could be far more useful and relevant than a
country-related 3 letter gTLD.  A glaring example is .IOT for an Internet
of Things TLD.  Finally, who are these "public interest/public benefit
entities"?  I suppose this is also intended to be limited to "relevant"
ones, but that opens a can of worms over identifying which ones are
"relevant" and what "relevant" means.  Can I found a non-profit corporation
and bid for .IOT?

I think that, if we don't have the time to do this right, we should
recommend that a future GNSO Working Group deal with the issue of
"unreserving" 3 letter codes and leave it at that.

Greg

Other email below:

A few thoughts on the ISO 3166 3-letter codes.

First, WT5 is fully competent to deal wit the issue of whether, when and
how strings identical to the existing ISO 3155 3-letter codes could be
applied for and delegated.  These are in the gTLD space.

Second, I would strongly object to any restriction on 3-letter strings that
DO NOT match existing ISO 3166 letter codes.  The "original" gTLDs were
three letter strings -- .com, .net, .org, .gov. .mil, .int, .edu.

Third, there is no "tradition" of (or technological reason for) ISO 3166
3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the
related countries and territories.  So why make that assumption now?

Fourth, I agree with Farzaneh that adding current ccTLD operators into the
mix as part of the privileged class makes this recommendation an
unfathomable mess.  This is not the time or the place to discuss the myriad
ways that ccTLD operators do or don't relate to the countries that the
ccTLD is related to.  And let's certainly not get into the issues raised by
ccTLDs that function as gTLDs but are beyond the reach of gTLD policy.
Let's just keep the ccTLD situation "unique" and move away from that
electrified fence.  Replicating the current ccTLD situation in the 3-letter
space would be a gross error in judgment.

Fifth, there are over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are
equivalent to strings with other meanings -- words in English or other
languages, currently delegated gTLDs, or acronyms.  Why should the future
of these 3 letter strings have anything to do with any countries, where
they have other significant meanings?  Of course, nothing prevents a
country or territory from applying for the related 3 letter code.  The 3
letter codes with other meanings are:

*CODE*

*Meaning*

*Related Country or Territory*

AGO

English word

Angola

AND

English word

Andorra

ANT

English word

Netherlands Antilles

ARE

English word

United Arab Emirates

ARM

English word

Armenia

BEL

Italian word

Belgium

BEN

First name

Benin

BRB

Acronym for “Be Right Back”

Barbados

CAN

English word

Canada

COD

English word

Congo, the Democratic Republic of the

COG

English word

Congo

COM

Current gTLD

Comoros

CUB

English word

Cuba

DOM

First name (short for “Dominic”); BDSM term

Dominican Republic

ESP

Acronym for “Extra-Sensory Perception”

Spain

EST

Word in various languages

Estonia

FIN

English word

Finland

FRA

Italian

France

FRO

English word

Faroe Islands

GAB

English word

Gabon

GEO

English word

Georgia

GIN

English word

Guinea

GUM

English word

Guam

GUY

English word

Guyana

HUN

English word

Hungary

IOT

Acronym for “Internet of Things”

British Indian Ocean Territory

IRL

Acronym for “Internet Resource Locater” or “In Real Life”

Ireland

JAM

English word

Jamaica

KEN

First name

Kenya

KIR

Drink

Kiribati

LIE

English word

Liechtenstein

LUX

English word

Luxembourg

MAC

Popular line of computers

Macao

MAR

English word

Morocco

NCL

Acronym for “National Consumers League” or “Norwegian Cruise Lines”

New Caledonia

NOR

English word

Norway

PAN

English word

Panama

PER

English word

Peru

POL

Short for “Politician”

Poland

PRY

English word

Paraguay

QAT

Narcotic leaf

Qatar

SAU

German word

Saudi Arabia

SUR

French word

Suriname

TON

English word, French word

Tonga

TUN

English word

Tunisia

VAT

English word; Acronym for “Value Added Tax”

Holy See (Vatican City State)

I would recommend that we either make a policy determination now, including
a statement of rationale, or that we just leave this for a future process.
A tossed-off non-recommendation that seeks to limit or prejudice future
policy work is really the worst of both worlds, and should be avoided.

Personally, I would be in favor of a recommendation that makes the current
3166 3-letter codes "unreserved" and open for applications, with a
restriction that any application that seeks to associate the TLD with the
related country or territory requires the consent or non-objection of that
country or territory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180813/4ac3a384/attachment-0001.html>