Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration: "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice. While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co... ). Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5. Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment. If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list. Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5. The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved. Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved." Thoughts? Kind Regards, Dev Anand Teelucksingh
Thanks for this, Dev. You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed make a Statement. Kindest regards, Olivier On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co... ).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment and a question: - Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing these could be seen as inequitable. - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment? Alan At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Thanks for this, Dev. You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed make a Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see
https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co...
).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 10/07/2014 16:41, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment?
I realise this -- but there's also another component to ask about: if changes to the Applicant Guidebook rules are refused (for example re: PABs or enforceable PICDRPs) then should changes to the Applicant Guidebook be allowed for applicants? Surely much discussion went into putting those restrictions on 2 character 2nd level domains when the AG was drafted, wasn't it? Kind regards, Olivier
At 10/07/2014 04:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
On 10/07/2014 16:41, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment?
I realise this -- but there's also another component to ask about: if changes to the Applicant Guidebook rules are refused (for example re: PABs or enforceable PICDRPs) then should changes to the Applicant Guidebook be allowed for applicants? Surely much discussion went into putting those restrictions on 2 character 2nd level domains when the AG was drafted, wasn't it? Kind regards,
Olivier
The issue for PABs is in the opposite direction. PABs, if implemented as suggested, would be mandated by ICANN. The requests in question here are requests from the registry to alter the contract, and ICANN has the right to refuse (and has in some cases). RSEPS have been a part of registry oversight for a long time. Alan
My take on this is that ccTLDs do not want to allow new gTLDs to have two letters 2nd level domains because they see their future revenues flat or shrinking. Is all about money. I can see gTlds segmenting their Tlds by country. Take the case in Puerto Rico: $1000 for a .pr or a more reasonable amount for a "wantedname.pr.whatever" -ed On Thu, Jul 10, 2014 at 4:15 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 10/07/2014 16:41, Alan Greenberg wrote:
- If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment?
I realise this -- but there's also another component to ask about: if changes to the Applicant Guidebook rules are refused (for example re: PABs or enforceable PICDRPs) then should changes to the Applicant Guidebook be allowed for applicants? Surely much discussion went into putting those restrictions on 2 character 2nd level domains when the AG was drafted, wasn't it? Kind regards,
Olivier _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- *NOTICE:* This email may contain information which is confidential and/or subject to legal privilege, and is intended for the use of the named addressee only. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not use, disclose or copy any part of this email. If you have received this email by mistake, please notify the sender and delete this message immediately.
Hi Alan I take your points. And maybe it is too late to protest, but in making a statement, couldn’t we note the impact on users. And remember, GAC is not there to represent users and since not all countries are represented within the GAC (particularly ones that do not exist, but may), maybe we can’t expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective Holly On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment and a question:
- Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing these could be seen as inequitable. - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment?
Alan
At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Thanks for this, Dev. You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed make a Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co... ).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I am all for making a statement if there is a real user issue here. I just don't see it. If I say a domain of ca.com, I would not likely think that it is somehow related to Canada. In fact, when I played that mind exercise I immediately thought about a long-defunct computer company called Coumputer Automation Inc. au.org is a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Who is going to confuse that with Australia. Personally I would not object to the release of all 2-letter codes. BA.TRAVEL is going to mean British Airways to most users. Perhaps there are some that would take it as meaning Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.travel... But remember, we are only talking about the two letter codes that are NOT used and currently have no meaning in relation to countries. If one day they are allocated, as someone pointed out, there is a good chance that the two letter code will not be instantly recognizable as standing for its new territorial owner. Is there really much likelihood of mass confusion? If you can write up a credible statement about potential user confusion, I am all for it. Alan At 12/07/2014 09:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Alan
I take your points. And maybe it is too late to protest, but in making a statement, couldnt we note the impact on users. And remember, GAC is not there to represent users and since not all countries are represented within the GAC (particularly ones that do not exist, but may), maybe we cant expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective
Holly On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment and a question:
- Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing these could be seen as inequitable. - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment?
Alan
At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Thanks for this, Dev. You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed make a Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see
https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co...
).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Well, end users might confuse the two character label at the 2nd level as a country or territory if third level domains were being offered under that 2nd level. Using au.org from your example, a hypothetical domain like health.au.org could confuse users in thinking it represented a health authority from Australia. A company (I don't think its a accredited registrar) called Joynic ( http://www.joynic.com) offers third level domains under .vu (the ccTLD for Vanuatu): de.vu, at.vu, ch.vu, nl.vu, ca.vu, tr.vu, gr.vu, ru.vu, pl.vu, es.vu, za.vu
From 2005 to 2011, Joynic was offering third level domains under .tt (the ccTLD from Trinidad and Tobago) : us.tt, uk.tt, uk.tt, ca.tt, au.tt, eu.tt, fr.tt, es.tt, nl.tt, it.tt, be.tt, de.tt, at.tt, ch.tt
See Wayback archive of Joynic's website from 2010 at https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/ Dev Anand On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
I am all for making a statement if there is a real user issue here.
I just don't see it.
If I say a domain of ca.com, I would not likely think that it is somehow related to Canada. In fact, when I played that mind exercise I immediately thought about a long-defunct computer company called Coumputer Automation Inc. au.org is a group called Americans United for Separation of Church and State. Who is going to confuse that with Australia.
Personally I would not object to the release of all 2-letter codes. BA.TRAVEL is going to mean British Airways to most users. Perhaps there are some that would take it as meaning Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.travel...
But remember, we are only talking about the two letter codes that are NOT used and currently have no meaning in relation to countries. If one day they are allocated, as someone pointed out, there is a good chance that the two letter code will not be instantly recognizable as standing for its new territorial owner. Is there really much likelihood of mass confusion?
If you can write up a credible statement about potential user confusion, I am all for it.
Alan
At 12/07/2014 09:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
Hi Alan
I take your points. And maybe it is too late to protest, but in making a statement, couldn’t we note the impact on users. And remember, GAC is not there to represent users and since not all countries are represented within the GAC (particularly ones that do not exist, but may), maybe we can’t expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective
Holly On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg@mcgill.ca> wrote:
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that
the two
character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/ display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/ display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement?
Many
would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification
While not disagreeing with Dev's careful analysis, I do have a comment and a question:
- Similar requests have already been approved for other TLDs. Refusing these could be seen as inequitable. - If the GAC and governments are not opposing such changes, is there really a user component that implies that we should comment?
Alan
At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
Thanks for this, Dev. You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed make a Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso. org/iso/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm ).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification
Hi Dev I realise this is a bit late, but I tend to agree there may be a concern with two-chracter domain names. Is there also the possibility of added confusion by users since two letter TLDs have, until now, referred to a country code (whether managed by an instrumentality of that government or not) So maybe something brief in response? Holly On 10 Jul 2014, at 5:08 pm, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Thanks for this, Dev. You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed make a Statement. Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co... ).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
Personally, I don't think there should be any restriction on of two-letter strings. Each country has an ISO code for its own ccTLD. That should suffice. Unless a gTLD registry wants themselves to segment their TLD by country there should be no reason to reserve strings, especially when the strings are also dictionary words ("my", "is", "to", "je", "si") or useful acronyms ("ie", "fm", "ps", "ip"). Since when is an ISO code a trademark (or to be treated like one)? I disagree with compounding the problem by reserving every two letter string to anticipate conflict with countries not yet existing. And where does the lunacy stop? WIPO and other non-state intellectual property orgs have reserved numerous ISO "country codes" for themselves (ap, bx, ef, em, ep, ev, gc, ib, oa, wo) As yet I'm not convinced of the need for an ALAC statement. But if there was one I would recommend dropping ALL reservations against two-letter strings in gTLDs. On 10 July 2014 02:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see
https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co... ).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
I’m with Even on this one. Anyhow, would our only reservation be it confuses internet users that this is not a ccTLD? or is there something more technical that would disadvantage the end-uder I am not aware of? Raf On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:49, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Personally, I don't think there should be any restriction on of two-letter strings.
Each country has an ISO code for its own ccTLD. That should suffice. Unless a gTLD registry wants themselves to segment their TLD by country there should be no reason to reserve strings, especially when the strings are also dictionary words ("my", "is", "to", "je", "si") or useful acronyms ("ie", "fm", "ps", "ip").
Since when is an ISO code a trademark (or to be treated like one)?
I disagree with compounding the problem by reserving every two letter string to anticipate conflict with countries not yet existing.
And where does the lunacy stop? WIPO and other non-state intellectual property orgs have reserved numerous ISO "country codes" for themselves (ap, bx, ef, em, ep, ev, gc, ib, oa, wo)
As yet I'm not convinced of the need for an ALAC statement. But if there was one I would recommend dropping ALL reservations against two-letter strings in gTLDs.
On 10 July 2014 02:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see
https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co... ).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
I am not really sure what the logic was behind forbidding such use. The "confusion" aspect seems to be a pretty weak argument. The only "logic" that I cold come up with is that some countries use the 2nd level to be equivalent to the original gTLD (ie .com.uk), so .uk.com is a reciprocal case. But in my mind it has really no merit. Alan At 10/07/2014 04:00 PM, Raf Fatani wrote:
Im with Even on this one.
Anyhow, would our only reservation be it confuses internet users that this is not a ccTLD? or is there something more technical that would disadvantage the end-uder I am not aware of?
Raf On 10 Jul 2014, at 20:49, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
Personally, I don't think there should be any restriction on of two-letter strings.
Each country has an ISO code for its own ccTLD. That should suffice. Unless a gTLD registry wants themselves to segment their TLD by country there should be no reason to reserve strings, especially when the strings are also dictionary words ("my", "is", "to", "je", "si") or useful acronyms ("ie", "fm", "ps", "ip").
Since when is an ISO code a trademark (or to be treated like one)?
I disagree with compounding the problem by reserving every two letter string to anticipate conflict with countries not yet existing.
And where does the lunacy stop? WIPO and other non-state intellectual property orgs have reserved numerous ISO "country codes" for themselves (ap, bx, ef, em, ep, ev, gc, ib, oa, wo)
As yet I'm not convinced of the need for an ALAC statement. But if there was one I would recommend dropping ALL reservations against two-letter strings in gTLDs.
On 10 July 2014 02:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the public comment on "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg for consideration:
"Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2 character ASCII labels not on the current ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII label by ISO 3166/MA (see
https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_co...
).
Any new country or territory created after 2014 would therefore not receive the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2 character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be applied to new gTLDs. However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to the question being asked for in the public comment.
If Specification 5 is meant to defend the principle that country codes in ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new gTLDs, then it should be enforced to ensure future countries and territories with new 2 character ASCII labels are protected in the same way as those territories and countries in today's ISO 3166-2 list.
Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd. should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design LLC which specifies that the two character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold that the use will not be confused with the corresponding country codes, as per Specification 5 and could be approved.
Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo Comunicação e Participações S.A which proposed the use of two character ASCII labels that are not letters or by two characters where only one of the character is a letter are labels that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
Thoughts?
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki:
https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
-- Evan Leibovitch Toronto Canada
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56 _______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
_______________________________________________ ALAC mailing list ALAC@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org ALAC Working Wiki: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALA...)
On 10/07/2014 22:55, Alan Greenberg wrote:
The only "logic" that I cold come up with is that some countries use the 2nd level to be equivalent to the original gTLD (ie .com.uk), so .uk.com is a reciprocal case. But in my mind it has really no merit.
Specifically uk.com is not used by the "country" but by a service provider. Historically the provider offered Web service under their own domain, a model also used by Demon Internet in the early days... It got traction then as it was marketed for "UK companies". Long time ago... Kind regards, Olivier
participants (7)
-
Alan Greenberg -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Eduardo Diaz -
Evan Leibovitch -
Holly Raiche -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Raf Fatani