As a FYI, there's is an informative page buried on ICANN's website about ICANN and ISO and how changes to the ISO list are done and how ICANN is involved https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-3166-2012-05-09-en Dev Anand On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee@gmail.com> wrote:
Interesting conversation. Some thoughts which I posted at https://community.icann.org/x/VIxYAw
1) No to "should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs?"
Given the presence of many 3 character TLDs as gTLDs, it doesn't seem prudent to reserve all future 3 character TLDs for ccTLDs, given the confusion as to which 3 characters would be a ccTLD and which is a TLD.
An advantage to such a policy would be for ccTLDs to have 3 character ccTLDs that may be marketed as complimentary to two character ccTLDs. ccTLD operators will get such TLDs at low cost compared to applying (and paying for) such 3 characters as a gTLD. If the principle of ccTLDs being able to secure the ISO 3166 alpha-3 codes is applied, reserving all 3 characters as ccTLDs would allow for future changes to the ISO 3166 alpha-3 to reflect changes to countries and territories being designated with new codes.
The disadvantage of such a policy is that it blocks any future three character TLDs for use as possible gTLDs. With many 3 character TLDs already delegated as gTLDs, there is the risk of end user confusion as to what policies would apply to TLD - gTLD registries have contracts with ICANN which stipulates certain conditions that must be met (RAA, WHOIS, PICs, etc) and ICANN enforces such policies via contractual compliance. ccTLDs don't have any such contracts with ICANN and can implement any policy as the ccTLD administrator wants.
2) No to "In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation?"
The problem with such a policy is that the ISO 3166 alpha-3 (and alpha-2 for that matter) codes are not static documents, they are updated to reflect changes to countries and territories. So there is a risk that a new country or territory can be allocated a new 3 letter code that would be taken by a gTLD. This would give rise to newer countries and territories being treated differently than the present existing countries with a new country or territory "locked out" of use of their 3 character code whilst older counties having use of their 3 character code.
3) Yes with caveats, to "In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?
This question appears poorly worded. If a three-character string doesn't exist in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 list, there is no relevant government or authority that has any claim to those three characters. If the question is asking "In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes OR if in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes, such gTLD applications must receive support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority", then the answer is Yes.
If there are governments or public authorities that feel they are better recognized or identified by the three character code in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, such entries could file objections via their GAC representatives on community or limited public interest grounds or convince the GAC to issue consensus advice against such a gTLD application. Having support and non-objection in hand from the relevant government/public authority would be prudent.
4) No to ""In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?"
Since some governments or public authorities may feel very strongly that feel they are better recognized or identified by the three character code in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, unrestricted use can result in objection challenges by Governments (via GAC consensus advice or filing an objection on community or limited public interest grounds). To facilitate consensus in ICANN's multistakeholder community, it seems prudent to not have unrestricted use of three-character strings.
5) No to "In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?"
The ISO 3166-1 alpha3 list doesn't use IDN characters and its not clear if there exists an definitive list of 3 character IDN strings that could be used to represent countries and territories. Blocking all 3 IDN characters can likely delay the expansion of IDNs gTLDs. If there are 3 character IDN strings that represent a geographic name (the name of a country or territory, permutations thereof and state names as in the current Applicant Guidebook) then such strings should be rejected as per the Applicant Guidebook. However, I would support any guidance from the At-Large IDN WG
6) Yes to "In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?""
I'm not seeing any strong disadvantages to say no to this, however, I would support any guidance from the At-Large IDN WG
Kind Regards,
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Jahangir Hossain <jrjahangir@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear Maureen, My personal observation, 3-latter should be reserved for ccTLD or IDN ccTLDs . It's makes more strengthen of ccTLDs operators or legal authority of country operators representation in ICANN platform which very important in future.
Regards/ Jahangir
On Sep 22, 2015 1:10 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Dear At-Large members
Country codes are traditionally a 2-letter string. The new gTLD process is enabling country and territory codes to be expanded to 3-letters (or even as whole names).
The “Cross Community Working Group for the Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains” is asking:
1. Should these new 3-letter country/territory codes be reserved ONLY as ccTLDs OR should they be open to everyone as gTLDs? (This question refers to 3-letter code IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs as well)
2. What advantages or disadvantages does your answer offer either group (ccTLDs or gTLDs)?
Please return your answers to these two questions to me asap. J
For those who would like to contribute to other questions about this topic please refer directly to the workspace
https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Use+of+Country+an...
All comments welcome J
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org