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

Tue Aug 14 09:39:36 UTC 2018

Sent from my mobile
Kindly excuse brevity and typos

On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 09:38 Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net>
wrote:

>
>
> > On 14 Aug 2018, at 10:02, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 07:46 Bastiaan Goslings, <
> bastiaan.goslings at ams-ix.net> wrote:
> >
> > > On 14 Aug 2018, at 00:52, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji at gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > 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.
> >
> >
> > Maybe, and that is why I made the reservation, not knowing what the
> restriction would (neet to) look like. It would of course have to be
> enforceable.
> >
> > SO: Hence it still seem the proposal of Carlos may still be the closest
> implementation scenario.
>
>
>
> As I said, I agree with the points Greg made, so for me the ‘hence’ is not
> applicable here.
>

SO: Sure I understood your stand, guess I was using your point as well to
justify mine. ;-)

>
>
>
> > > If the intent is to provide some level of restrictions then applicant
> certainly shouldn’t be a determinant of that.
> >
> >
> > I have not given this any thought but I’d imagine one can make the
> requirement part of the application procedure and have the applicant sign
> for this. And if then later on the TLD can demonstrably be ‘associated with
> the related country or territory’ that would be a breach of contract and
> the applicant would no longer be allowed to run the TLD. And e.g. would not
> be entitled to a refund of the application fees.
> >
> > SO: Hmm...I guess the extent of the "demonstration" needs to be defined
> and unambiguous. I think in most cases looking at the TLD string should
> immediately demonstrate if it’s related to the country/territory or not.
>
>
> I think the ‘over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are equivalent
> to strings with other meanings’ prove that is not the case. Again, .iot
> being a ‘glaring example’.
>

SO: Well we have over 240 of the 3 letter codes, I guess it's a matter of
which is a lesser complication than the other. ;-)

Otherwise my concern below will still be a bottleneck that then applies
beyond 45 of the codes

>
>
> > It will become more complicated when the relationship is checked based
> on the applicant or the purpose of the string, both of which can be easily
> "gamed".
> >
>

Regards

> >
> > >
> > > > 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/20180814/929e5900/attachment-0001.html>