[CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes
Anupam Agrawal
anupam.agrawal at tcs.com
Mon Aug 20 06:26:35 UTC 2018
Indeed. I echo your thought.
Very well written by Yrjo.
Best Regards,
Anupam Agrawal
| ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 - Secretariat |
| Corporate Industry Forums & Standards Cell | Tata Consultancy Services |
T: +91 33 6636 8561; VOIP: 433 8561; M: +91 990 399 2838 |
From: "Marita Moll" <mmoll at ca.inter.net>
To: cpwg at icann.org
Date: 20-08-2018 11:53
Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal
for 3-letter country codes
Sent by: "registration-issues-wg"
<registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org>
Excellent points. Some of these abbreviations become so common we don't
even see them anymore. They are just there and we know intuitively what
they stand for. Thank you.
Marita
On 8/19/2018 7:15 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:
Dear Greg, all,
The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications
that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of
awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries,
especially to one's own.
All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the
nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code.
The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for
teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries.
For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO
3166 3-letter code.
ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated
Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN
Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users
there, too.
Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant
country would inevitably invite end user confusion.
Best,
Yrjö
From: registration-issues-wg
<registration-issues-wg-bounces at atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg
Shatan <greg at isoc-ny.org>
Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM
To: Carlton Samuels
Cc: cpwg at icann.org
Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for
3-letter country codes
Carlton,
I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the
history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related
TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the
business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get
into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the
appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like
Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and
territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166
2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just
left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc.
So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided
matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes
by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in
TLD policy and decision-making.
It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding
the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that
have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band
community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers
(and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which
already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance).
Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider
.IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet
expansion....
I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face
the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the
most beneficial.
Best regards,
Greg
On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels <
carlton.samuels at gmail.com> wrote:
Very interesting indeed.
SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter,
and 3-digit.
ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now,
the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely
to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so?
If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land
grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as
allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am
I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one
with the binding authority at .jm].
My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek
reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be
crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining
ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else
will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime
Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code
for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with
gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for
all to accept.
So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not
totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace.
-Carlton
==============================
Carlton A Samuels
Mobile: 876-818-1799
Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround
=============================
On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
wrote:
These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:
I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of
whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter
codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going,
the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered
for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.
Notwithstanding,
3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard
I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings
currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application
in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can
be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being
used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and
territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way)
and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC
in the Olympic Games.
In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on
the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some
moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance)
all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter
codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.
I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case
of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for
which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for
application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or
which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's
government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose
associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made
available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard,
where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.
As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be
subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations
should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So
as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian
Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of
Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and
accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.
As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which
have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is
meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any
entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public
benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city
name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up
application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or
public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is
contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in
resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is
not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager"
applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a
letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public
authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for
3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive
and curative 'safeguards' framework.
Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public
authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect
of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream
even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership
framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution
mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties
concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the
suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public
authority is a good one IMO.
Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of
applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD
manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option.
Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are
typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch
marketing.
Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the
territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings
(whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as
gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.
3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard
I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings
NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for
application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be
made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to
deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard
over time.
Regards,
Justine Chew
-----
On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet at gmail.com>
wrote:
On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <
maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
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.”
+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN
could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD
managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and
best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct
from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well,
some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different
direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but
in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external
entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control
irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps
even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3
codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity
for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS,
somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully
coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an
alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a
contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD
experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective
countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3
codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with
the general principles of the DNS.
Sivasubramanian M
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
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
--
Sivasubramanian M
Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
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
=====-----=====-----=====
Notice: The information contained in this e-mail
message and/or attachments to it may contain
confidential or privileged information. If you are
not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use,
review, distribution, printing or copying of the
information contained in this e-mail message
and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If
you have received this communication in error,
please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and
immediately and permanently delete the message
and any attachments. Thank you
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180820/c11a24c7/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list