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

[Seun Ojedeji]

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, 13:08 Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
wrote:

> Hi Greg,
>
> Thanks a lot.
>
> Without having any knowledge when it comes to history/context/previous &
> ongoing (WT5) related discussions, the points you raise make sense to me.
> And until someone manages to convince me otherwise, I agree with you and
> therefore do not support Carlos’ recommendation.
>
> With regard to the:
>
> > 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.
>
>
> I do not know what this ‘restriction’ would look like specifically, but to
> me it almost sounds like you solved the .amazon case ;-)
>

SO:  An applicant sure wouldn't want to associate a TLD with a related
country in his/her application if that will indeed pose a bottleneck for
them, so I don't think Greg's proposal actually restrict anything in
practice.

If the intent is to provide some level of restrictions then applicant
certainly shouldn't be a determinant of that.

Regards

>
> regards
> Bastiaan
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Aug 2018, at 06:28, 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fc4f0a4f/attachment.html>