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

Wed Aug 15 15:22:51 UTC 2018

Hi group,

Alexander Schubert, .berlin and .gay (community). Not voting in any other SO/AC. Participating in the WT5 quite actively. Having read here silently since a while. Promotor of community funded, -operated and -owned public benefit, non-profit, registrant authenticated new gTLD applications for the next round.

Let me play devil's advocate: So essentially WT5 should say:
"We at WT5 aren't authorized and competent enough to create a policy framework on how to apply for country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes in the current gTLD process; we do suggest that ANOTHER body might create such policies - including the decision whether those are gTLDs or ccTLDs or "somethingelseTLDs"; but introduce already restrictions for that future body!"?

I don't think it would be fair to create random pre-conditions for the policy body that will have to deal with the task to create application policies for these names in the future. They deserve to enter into  their work without any "ballast".  

WT5 rejects policy recommendations because these would be subject to the gTLD policy framework - but some want to see these strings being subjected rather (at least partly) to the ccTLD policy framework. Hence we suggest that NOBODY shall apply for such string - until another body makes a sufficient policy. Understandable. BUT: What with Governments which DO SUPPORT such application - and have ZERO PROBLEM with it being subjected to the gTLD framework? Country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes are not very different from ISO 3166-2 Country subdivision codes; and we do have already registration policies for these in place!

In that respect my proposal (which I also made in WT5): if a Government WANTS to support such application as a gTLD - just let them do it; while ICANN strongly recommends to all others to wait for the future policy framework.

Here my proposal as addition to the geo-name policies in the new AGB (needs to be brushed up):

•                 country names or  ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code based strings are similar to ISO 3166-2 Country subdivision code based strings

•                 there is ALREADY a strict Government support policy in place – for ALL applications regardless of geo-use intent.

•                 ICANN is  announcing that a registration policy for these strings will be in developed – but that it will take many more years to be established

•                 That until such policy is established Governments are STRONGLY advised to NOT issue support for applications for country names or  ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code based strings

•                 That IF a Government supports such application within in the gTLD framework they will have to consult with ICANN (allowing ICANN to yet again explain why such string should actually NOT be applied for right now). It would be requisite that the relevant  ccTLD manager and the relevant  GAC member have to sign off as well (letters of non-objection)

Such proposal would allow the average Government to point to ICANN’s recommendation to NOT allow applications for these strings. But it would also allow those who WANT to operate such string NOW to go for it. For example as: 

Non-profit, public benefit, community constituent funded applications that do not have to follow the classical “TLD-economics”. Namespaces that serve for eGovernment, destination marketing (tourism board), investment authority marketing, national airline presentation, national sports authority/national Olympic committee presentation. Entities which are used to spend big budgets – and for whom the collective financing of the application and operation costs of a gTLD is a drop in the bucket. To create a trusted namespace – similar to “.gov”. Something they couldn’t do with their national ccTLD. Examples could be “.spain” for a uniform destination marketing of all regions and cities like ibiza.spain, mallorca.spain, granada.spain, costabrava.spain, travel.spain, tourism.spain, seville.spain, malaga.spain, etc.

So ICANN strongly recommends to Governments to NOT support these applications – but it allows them to do so if they really, really want! Meanwhile we doctor another 5 to 10 years on how to create “policy” for the names (we do so since well over 10 years by now). 

Thoughts?

Alexander.berlin

-----Original Message-----
From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sebastien Bachollet
Sent: Dienstag, 14. August 2018 22:55
To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
Cc: CPWG <cpwg at icann.org>; Javier Rúa-Jovet <javrua at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Hello all,

I would like to be sure that the proposal of Carlos embedded some of « my » definition and question?

"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.”

governmental authorities: include local or regional authorities?

I suppose that relevant is relevant for both governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities?

And can I suggest that the and be replace by or?

All the best

SeB

> Le 11 août 2018 à 20:43, Maureen Hilyard < <mailto:maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> a écrit :

> 

> Hi everyone

> 

> If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that 

> there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on 

> Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each 

> of the key issues that are being discussed.

> 

> With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul 

> Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process 

> move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a 

> reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken 

> place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The 

> ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.

> 

> *This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received 

> by the co-Chairs during the week  and as they will have to prepare for 

> the next

> WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion 

> as well. *

> 

> “Dear Annebeth,

> 

> As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track 

> record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter 

> geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, 

> and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

> 

> Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest 

> case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- 

> and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language 

> suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would 

> substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which 

> deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may want to consider 

> recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation 

> process to be established (either generic or restricted to the 

> Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how 

> specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, 

> national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"

> 

> My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

> 

> “*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*.”

> 

> This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking 

> recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if 

> it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a 

> permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

> 

> Thanks to all,

> 

> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez"

> _______________________________________________

> CPWG mailing list

>  <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> CPWG at icann.org

>  <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

> _______________________________________________

> GTLD-WG mailing list

>  <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org

>  <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

> 

> Working Group direct URL: 

>  <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

_______________________________________________

CPWG mailing list

 <mailto:CPWG at icann.org> CPWG at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________

GTLD-WG mailing list

 <mailto:GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org

 <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL:  <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180815/8ee827b1/attachment-0001.html>