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

Mon Aug 13 22:35:22 UTC 2018

All proposals seem to be premised first on the eminent domain principle and
if not so sure, raise a doubt then hold its use in perpetual abeyance.
That's a serviceable approach for holding land. Not so sure it fits for a
digital/virtual property.

This aside, if only I could figure out how to monopolize the online market
for jam I'd hot foot it upto Jamaica House and in my best Sir Humphrey, go
with a 'do I have a deal for you, Prime Minister'. :-) :-)

-Carlton

==============================
*Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround*
=============================

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 11:29 PM Greg Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org> wrote:

> 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.
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180813/16967bb1/attachment-0001.html>