At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains
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
To me the answer is self-evident. The codes that ICANN uses for ccTLDs, especially ones that are non-intuitive to foreigners (such as .ch for Switzerland, .za for South Africa or .kh for Cambodia) are based on an ISO standard, ISO 3166-1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1>, with one notable exception (use of ,uk when the ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB). This same standard also defines three-lettter codes. Because of the definition of a publicly-understood standard, anything besides allocating these ISO codes to the appropriate ccTLDs would cause substantial public confusion. - Evan On 22 September 2015 at 09:09, 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
I note that I did not fully answer Maureen's questions. The comments of my last message refer only to the ISO-defined three-letter strings. Full-length names (such as .deutchland) are not protected this way; though I believe the allocation of country-full-name strings to third parties to be stupid and generally against the public interest, the case against them is not as obvious as for the ISO codes. Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete. - Evan On 22 September 2015 at 10:06, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
To me the answer is self-evident.
The codes that ICANN uses for ccTLDs, especially ones that are non-intuitive to foreigners (such as .ch for Switzerland, .za for South Africa or .kh for Cambodia) are based on an ISO standard, ISO 3166-1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1>, with one notable exception (use of ,uk when the ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB).
This same standard also defines three-lettter codes. Because of the definition of a publicly-understood standard, anything besides allocating these ISO codes to the appropriate ccTLDs would cause substantial public confusion.
- Evan
On 22 September 2015 at 09:09, 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
On 22/09/2015 09:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete.
Agreed - and there's another process to comment on wrt this topic. https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw Kind regards, Olivier
Yes ... the moratorium idea is starting to gain traction. Olivier's link relates to another gTLD issue waiting for comments from At Large. On 21/09/2015 11:43 pm, "Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond" <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2015 09:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete.
Agreed - and there's another process to comment on wrt this topic. https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw
Kind regards,
Olivier
On 22 September 2015 at 11:43, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 22/09/2015 09:13, Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete.
Agreed - and there's another process to comment on wrt this topic. https://community.icann.org/x/zIdYAw
As some may know I was once heavily involved in previous work regarding metrics by which to evaluate the public utility of the gTLD expansion; indeed ALAC had to fight to include consumer metrics which the domain industry wanted to avoid. Even at this point I believe that, in the interest of inflicting a new round of expansion on us ASAP, the domain industry is going to twist and turn in order to paint the current expansion in an artificially positive bias. This needs to be resisted in the name of accuracy and fairness. IMO there are also lessons to be learned from the experiences of communities that were marginalized (or completely shut out) regarding their hopes for public-service gTLDs... I'm thinking .nyc, .gay and .music as examples.These are not numeric metrics but IMO still factor into an overall evaluation of whether the expansion served the public interest. In general I think that the community evaluation process (and by extension the applicant support program) were among the bigger failures of the process to date. Given my present circumstances I can't spare the time to be the main pen-holder on this, however I have already committed to Carlton that I would assist and give feedback once an initial draft statement is in place. - Evan
A *full* evaluation could be a long ... hiatus :-)That horse bolted and took the stable (ICANN) with it. I doubt it can be put back in its box. It will be hard to argue against *any* new domains unless there is clear instability to the DNS in their creation and use. I do agree with the limitation to keep 2 and 3 character domains restricted for the time being until enough dust has settled from the expansion and user confidence in navigating the enlarged domain space is sufficient to let that go - if ever. Christian Evan Leibovitch wrote:
Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete.
- Evan
-- Christian de Larrinaga
On 22 September 2015 at 12:09, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> wrote:
A *full* evaluation could be a long ... hiatus :-)
What's wrong with that?
That horse bolted and took the stable (ICANN) with it. I doubt it can be put back in its box.
Why not? Until a new round is approved ... a new round is not yet approved :-) I am not sure what is irreversible in this regard. There is no obligation for ICANN to accept new applications if it deems that the current expansion did not deliver what was promised and that further expansion must be examined before commencing. We know, at very least, that the monetary promises of the expansion have materialized but a small fraction of what was originally predicted. So even based on that a stop to reflect is warranted. There are other issues such as public confusion, spikes in phishing using new domains, the performance of PICs and the lack of " universal acceptance" that collectively make this a stability matter as well. - Evan
Evan Let me play devil's advocate for a moment. A pause to tune the program is one thing. But a full stop to wait for a full evaluation that needs an unlimited time maybe ten / twenty or more years would likely be seen as really being a call for a complete halt. That would be akin to creating a new layer of "haves" in the Internet domain space. That seems obnoxious. Also if the program is so destabilising then the consideration may need to go further and roll the program back? That isn't going to happen is it. On the grounds you mention for intervening. Cyber Security is a good hot topic of course but the expansion of tlds hasn't expanded the problem space just the domain space it can exist in. For users the same caveat's need to apply across all that space. So there is no substantial change in the problem scope for users. The monetary return or bankruptcy of speculators is a matter for them and market regulators. ICANN presumably was well aware of the risk where a domain may cease to be economically viable and fails to consolidate into stable registry operators. But bit-rot is an ever present problem of many Internet protocols. We see http sites, and services disappearing all the time without systemic implications for the Internet. It is annoying of course and makes for appalling implications for the historical record. But in an era where the right to be forgotten is being made law a few inadvertent disappearances due to resolution failures that in one protocol perspective (DNS) isn't in itself a systemic issue. Of course if the health industry for example should run all online monitoring services through one tld and that goes down then that would be a severe disruption for that sector. So probably a bad idea to create such unhelpful industry integrated dependencies. But when did a silly idea not become a hot marketing ticket? The point about user confusion is valid I think. But the problem here is that no data network or IT device or service I've seen has had users sufficiently familiar with it before it was introduced. Thirty years after the introduction of GSX, GEM, Mac and Windows 1.0 most users are still skimming the surface of using GUIs. It is over 50 years since Command lines and even fewer can use these effectively. Familiarity to reach universal acceptance to wait before new innovations is an endless argument that has no chance of being heard in the market. What we need are better mechanisms for users to take control themselves of Internet resources and devices they depend on. In that sense seeing more from the vast pools of cash being generated by incumbencies created through the economic and political force that hierarchical protocols create into empowering users to exert market control over them would be a good use of our time. Can a hiatus in new tld roll out achieve a step in that direction? Christian Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 12:09, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>>wrote:
A *full* evaluation could be a long ... hiatus :-)
What's wrong with that?
That horse bolted and took the stable (ICANN) with it. I doubt it can be put back in its box.
Why not?
Until a new round is approved ... a new round is not yet approved :-)
I am not sure what is irreversible in this regard. There is no obligation for ICANN to accept new applications if it deems that the current expansion did not deliver what was promised and that further expansion must be examined before commencing.
We know, at very least, that the monetary promises of the expansion have materialized but a small fraction of what was originally predicted. So even based on that a stop to reflect is warranted.
There are other issues such as public confusion, spikes in phishing using new domains, the performance of PICs and the lack of " universal acceptance" that collectively make this a stability matter as well.
- Evan
-- Christian de Larrinaga
Dear All, It is great to see a vibrant discussion on this topic! To help the penholder (Maureen Hilyard) keep track of the comments and also to bring more visibility to this discussion, I took the liberty to paste your comments in the At-Large wiki workspace here: https://community.icann.org/x/VIxYAw. I would encourage you to continue this discussion using the comment function in the wiki workspace. If there is any issue, please contact me off-list. Thank you, Ariel Ariel Xinyue Liang Policy Analyst | Washington, DC Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) Skype: ariel.liang.icann Mobile: +1 (310) 804-2761 Email: ariel.liang@icann.org Twitter: @ICANNAtLarge <https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> Facebook: www.facebook.com/icannatlarge <https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> -----Original Message----- From: <at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net> Date: Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 12:32 PM To: Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> Cc: ICANN At-Large list <at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Subject: Re: [At-Large] At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains
Evan
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment.
A pause to tune the program is one thing. But a full stop to wait for a full evaluation that needs an unlimited time maybe ten / twenty or more years would likely be seen as really being a call for a complete halt.
That would be akin to creating a new layer of "haves" in the Internet domain space. That seems obnoxious.
Also if the program is so destabilising then the consideration may need to go further and roll the program back? That isn't going to happen is it.
On the grounds you mention for intervening. Cyber Security is a good hot topic of course but the expansion of tlds hasn't expanded the problem space just the domain space it can exist in. For users the same caveat's need to apply across all that space. So there is no substantial change in the problem scope for users.
The monetary return or bankruptcy of speculators is a matter for them and market regulators. ICANN presumably was well aware of the risk where a domain may cease to be economically viable and fails to consolidate into stable registry operators.
But bit-rot is an ever present problem of many Internet protocols. We see http sites, and services disappearing all the time without systemic implications for the Internet. It is annoying of course and makes for appalling implications for the historical record.
But in an era where the right to be forgotten is being made law a few inadvertent disappearances due to resolution failures that in one protocol perspective (DNS) isn't in itself a systemic issue.
Of course if the health industry for example should run all online monitoring services through one tld and that goes down then that would be a severe disruption for that sector. So probably a bad idea to create such unhelpful industry integrated dependencies. But when did a silly idea not become a hot marketing ticket?
The point about user confusion is valid I think. But the problem here is that no data network or IT device or service I've seen has had users sufficiently familiar with it before it was introduced. Thirty years after the introduction of GSX, GEM, Mac and Windows 1.0 most users are still skimming the surface of using GUIs. It is over 50 years since Command lines and even fewer can use these effectively. Familiarity to reach universal acceptance to wait before new innovations is an endless argument that has no chance of being heard in the market.
What we need are better mechanisms for users to take control themselves of Internet resources and devices they depend on. In that sense seeing more from the vast pools of cash being generated by incumbencies created through the economic and political force that hierarchical protocols create into empowering users to exert market control over them would be a good use of our time.
Can a hiatus in new tld roll out achieve a step in that direction?
Christian
Evan Leibovitch wrote:
On 22 September 2015 at 12:09, Christian de Larrinaga <cdel@firsthand.net <mailto:cdel@firsthand.net>>wrote:
A *full* evaluation could be a long ... hiatus :-)
What's wrong with that?
That horse bolted and took the stable (ICANN) with it. I doubt it can be put back in its box.
Why not?
Until a new round is approved ... a new round is not yet approved :-)
I am not sure what is irreversible in this regard. There is no obligation for ICANN to accept new applications if it deems that the current expansion did not deliver what was promised and that further expansion must be examined before commencing.
We know, at very least, that the monetary promises of the expansion have materialized but a small fraction of what was originally predicted. So even based on that a stop to reflect is warranted.
There are other issues such as public confusion, spikes in phishing using new domains, the performance of PICs and the lack of " universal acceptance" that collectively make this a stability matter as well.
- Evan
-- Christian de Larrinaga _______________________________________________ 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
There are already 3-letter gTLDs that are conflicting with alpha-3 codes.
Whew, I thought I was the only person who noticed that. COM is the Comoros islands, that horse left the barn 30 years ago. Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out. I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already. Regards, John Levine, john.levine@cauce.org CAUCE North America
On 09/22/2015 12:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
I fully agree with John Levine on this. --karl--
+1 to Karl and John. Potential user confusion is not something I am concerned about as much as censorship and giving governments more sway inside ICANN. The GAC has already won far too many concessions OUTSIDE the GNSO policy arena, we shouldn't give them any more for minor reasons. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 09/22/2015 12:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two
letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes
other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
I fully agree with John Levine on this.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
Hello Tim & all, I am not sure I'm 100% in agreement here. I have concerns that so far we've had ccTLDs that were running country-related TLDs and now we might see more Country Codes, this time 3-letter country codes, used and run as gTLDs - hence falling under the remit of the GNSO = more US-based legislation and less legislation that happens in the country itself. This, to me, smells like a concentration of more power within ICANN's walls, when if we insisted on keeping CCs (2 & 3 letters) in ccNSO hands, wouldn't it do the opposite? Kindest regards, Olivier On 23/09/2015 14:08, McTim wrote:
+1 to Karl and John.
Potential user confusion is not something I am concerned about as much as censorship and giving governments more sway inside ICANN. The GAC has already won far too many concessions OUTSIDE the GNSO policy arena, we shouldn't give them any more for minor reasons.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com <mailto:karl@cavebear.com>> wrote:
On 09/22/2015 12:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
I fully agree with John Levine on this.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ At-Large mailing list At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto: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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
At its core, this is about putting public property (ie, an existing international standard) in pr oprietary hands... like having a troll trying to assert copyright on the flags of the world. The fact that there are exceptions to reservation of the standard (.com, .uk) does not negate the validity of the standard going forward. Going after it will simply diminish trust in ICANN even below its current awful levels, and at some point this diminishing trust will affect DNS stability. As for the GACophobia... f ine. As Olivier suggests, punt it to the ccNSO first and see what they think. That's critical feedback to this issue.
Hi Evan, On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
At its core, this is about putting public property (ie, an existing international standard) in pr oprietary hands
Is it? I'm not seeing it. It DOES mean that 3 letter codes could be used as gTLD (the ccTLD manager could apply as well and use it as a psuedo-ccTLD if they wanted). Nation States do not OWN the codes, or the standard (ISO). Nation States have, in theory, asserted authority over 2 letter ccTLDs, but in practice that hasn't always been the case in practice. The Tunis Agenda that asserted sovereignty is a non-binding agreement.
... like having a troll trying to assert copyright on the flags of the world.
The fact that there are exceptions to reservation of the standard (.com, .uk) does not negate the validity of the standard going forward. Going after it will simply diminish trust in ICANN even below its current awful levels, and at some point this diminishing trust will affect DNS stability.
red-herring IMHO.
As for the GACophobia...
I am not GAC phobic, I just want them to understand their role and not assert more authority than they have on paper. In practice, they have done end-arounds to implement the blocking of thousands of strings at the second level without appropriate GNSO action as just one example of how they would like to have more power.
f ine. As Olivier suggests, punt it to the ccNSO first and see what they think. That's critical feedback to this issue.
Why? The ccNSO doesn't have ALL cc's as Member's nor do they have authority over 3 letter codes. This would be a radical shift done without a PDP. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
I am not GAC phobic, I just want them to understand their role and not assert more authority than they have on paper.
Good luck with that. The more ICANN goes rogue on the public interest, the more it invites governments to do their own thing. Keep it going, guys. ICANN's authority is not by treaty (like ISO), it is only by tacit and informal international consent. That consent can be withdrawn or modified at any time by any state(s). The GAC is ICANN's only buffer against that, on paper or not. Or ... maybe it can do another PR campaign for "universal acceptance".
In practice, they have done end-arounds to implement the blocking of thousands of strings at the second level without appropriate GNSO action as just one example of how they would like to have more power.
I didn't expect to find humour in this debate, but that gave me a chuckle. Governments have ZERO obligation to honour the GNSO. That's one of the little unfortunate truths that people tend to forget inside the bubble called ICANN. Governments are sovereign over their territories in exactly the way that ICANN is not. They already possess all the power you complain that they seek; the industry just screams like a baby whenever that power is asserted, as if it is magically entitled to a veto. Especially in the absence of international oversight, it is the GNSO that needs to demonstrate that it deserves the trust of the world's governments to operate, not vice versa. Right now that trust is in short supply and on the decrease; making a land-grab on the 3-letter ISO country codes would go a long way to eroding it even faster. Yeah, you tell the GAC -- you tell the global public -- that this issue needs a PDP, that the domain industry gets to hold court on it. This'll be fun to watch, - Evan
Hi Olivier, all I understand the sentiments and I somewhat agree with you on the fact the there is need for some form of "power" distribution. I will personally say apart from power, orderliness and structure is another aspect we may be loosing once the 3 letter is opened up in the manner proposed. This was actually why I added a +1 to John as i read his mail to mean "let the the 3 letters be open to all" and maintain the 2 letters to ccTLDs". I don't know of any instance where a country(new) could not get alpha-2 codes. The alpha-2 is closer to the work of IANA as its what is also used within the IETF within IETF as well. That said, there is also merit in reserving the corresponding alpha-3 letter of each country and then opening up to the Gs. The advantage in that is that some level of consistency will be ensured so the registry managing for instance .ng will also manage .ngr Regards On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello Tim & all,
I am not sure I'm 100% in agreement here. I have concerns that so far we've had ccTLDs that were running country-related TLDs and now we might see more Country Codes, this time 3-letter country codes, used and run as gTLDs - hence falling under the remit of the GNSO = more US-based legislation and less legislation that happens in the country itself. This, to me, smells like a concentration of more power within ICANN's walls, when if we insisted on keeping CCs (2 & 3 letters) in ccNSO hands, wouldn't it do the opposite? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 23/09/2015 14:08, McTim wrote:
+1 to Karl and John.
Potential user confusion is not something I am concerned about as much as censorship and giving governments more sway inside ICANN. The GAC has already won far too many concessions OUTSIDE the GNSO policy arena, we shouldn't give them any more for minor reasons.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 09/22/2015 12:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two
letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes
other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
I fully agree with John Levine on this.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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 listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Adding my own 2c worth to this conversation I would agree with Seun's recommendations On 23/09/2015 5:19 am, "Seun Ojedeji" <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Olivier, all
I understand the sentiments and I somewhat agree with you on the fact the there is need for some form of "power" distribution. I will personally say apart from power, orderliness and structure is another aspect we may be loosing once the 3 letter is opened up in the manner proposed. This was actually why I added a +1 to John as i read his mail to mean "let the the 3 letters be open to all" and maintain the 2 letters to ccTLDs". I don't know of any instance where a country(new) could not get alpha-2 codes. The alpha-2 is closer to the work of IANA as its what is also used within the IETF within IETF as well.
That said, there is also merit in reserving the corresponding alpha-3 letter of each country and then opening up to the Gs. The advantage in that is that some level of consistency will be ensured so the registry managing for instance .ng will also manage .ngr
Regards
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
Hello Tim & all,
I am not sure I'm 100% in agreement here. I have concerns that so far we've had ccTLDs that were running country-related TLDs and now we might see more Country Codes, this time 3-letter country codes, used and run as gTLDs - hence falling under the remit of the GNSO = more US-based legislation and less legislation that happens in the country itself. This, to me, smells like a concentration of more power within ICANN's walls, when if we insisted on keeping CCs (2 & 3 letters) in ccNSO hands, wouldn't it do the opposite? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 23/09/2015 14:08, McTim wrote:
+1 to Karl and John.
Potential user confusion is not something I am concerned about as much as censorship and giving governments more sway inside ICANN. The GAC has already won far too many concessions OUTSIDE the GNSO policy arena, we shouldn't give them any more for minor reasons.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote:
On 09/22/2015 12:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two
letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes
other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
I fully agree with John Levine on this.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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 listAt-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>*
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ 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
On 23/09/2015 16:18, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That said, there is also merit in reserving the corresponding alpha-3 letter of each country and then opening up to the Gs. The advantage in that is that some level of consistency will be ensured so the registry managing for instance .ng will also manage .ngr
If .NG is under ccNSO and .NGR under GNSO there is no guarantee that this would be the case. Could .NGR be run by a Registry based outside Nigeria? Would this introduce competition to the local ccTLD? Would this siphon money out of Nigeria rather than keeping it in the local economy? Kind regards, Olivier
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 4:46 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
On 23/09/2015 16:18, Seun Ojedeji wrote:
That said, there is also merit in reserving the corresponding alpha-3 letter of each country and then opening up to the Gs. The advantage in that is that some level of consistency will be ensured so the registry managing for instance .ng will also manage .ngr
If .NG is under ccNSO and .NGR under GNSO there is no guarantee that this would be the case. Could .NGR be run by a Registry based outside Nigeria? Would this introduce competition to the local ccTLD? Would this siphon money out of Nigeria rather than keeping it in the local economy?
While there are still a few ccTLDs that is still being run by registries based outside the region, I think that decision making process should remain with the respective countries. So such situation described above is a bottleneck that needs to be avoided at ICANN level; .NGR for instance should not be run under the GNSO. If the 3 letter TLD is to be opened as gTLD then it would be preferred to reserve the corresponding country codes for ccTLDs. I would expect that necessary processes will be put in place to ensure that the alpha-3 reserved in the 3 letter TLDs are operated in similar manner used by the alpha-2 (both at operation and policy level). That said, there is still the question of whether current ccTLD registries will be willing to maintain an extra tld. Nevertheless, i think it should be done in the interest of avoiding ambiguity, ensuring clarity and proper structure; It will be good for ICANN to ensure that a country alpha-3 code does not get delegated to an "unauthorised" registry. I fear the future politics within ICANN will be more complicated than we know it if that is not done. Regards Kind regards,
Olivier
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Seun Ojedeji writes:
If .NG is under ccNSO and .NGR under GNSO there is no guarantee that this would be the case. Could .NGR be run by a Registry based outside Nigeria? Would this introduce competition to the local ccTLD? Would this siphon money out of Nigeria rather than keeping it in the local economy?
I cannot resist to remark that NGR is not an ISO 3166 alpha-3 code. Check the database at <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/> for the code and notice it is actually NGA. jaap
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 6:28 PM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
Seun Ojedeji writes:
If .NG is under ccNSO and .NGR under GNSO there is no guarantee that this would be the case. Could .NGR be run by a Registry based outside Nigeria? Would this introduce competition to the local ccTLD? Would this siphon money out of Nigeria rather than keeping it in the local economy?
I cannot resist to remark that NGR is not an ISO 3166 alpha-3 code. Check the database at <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/> for the code and notice it is actually NGA.
Thats right, NGR is the IOC code. Thanks for catching that. Cheers!
jaap
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ *Seun Ojedeji,Federal University Oye-Ekitiweb: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng <http://www.fuoye.edu.ng> Mobile: +2348035233535**alt email: <http://goog_1872880453>seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng <seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng>* Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
Disclaimer: I have been working 8 solid years for a standardization organization, so please understand that I am biased. In the standardization community it is often said that standards are as good as they are being used. In other words, a little used standard is not worth much. My question is: how much is the ISO-3166-3 used? There might be some obscure (to the end user) applications, although Elisabeth can prove me wrong, but I am under the impression that, while the ISO-3166-2 are widely used (and therefore recognized), the ISO-3166-3 are not. Who can name ISO-3166-3 applications? About ISO-3166-2 I can name ccTLDs, IBAN, currencies (in the sense that the 3-letter currency code has the alpha-2 as its first 2 letters), and more. But the alpha-3? And that's exactly pointed out by Seun's "mistake" and Jaap's "correction". The fact is that there are plenty of three-letters country codes, created by different bodies. IOC is one, but FIFA also has its own, plus the international car license plates, and many more. Let's go for a few examples. * the Holy See, VA in ISO-3166-2, is VAT (yes, like Value Added Tax) in ISO-3166-3, but SCV in license plates. They are not a member neither of IOC nor FIFA (although I have learned to play football - soccer in North America - in the neighborhood catholic parish), but God only knows what their code would be in the sports environment. Now, to the point, ask any person in Italy, and in Rome in particular, what a 3-letter code for the Holy See would be, and I bet the answer would be SCV. Ask them what VAT means, and you all can guess what the answer would be. So, whats the point in reserving VAT, that is widely used for something else, and not SCV, that is recognized as belonging to the Holy See? * Angola, AO in alpha-2, AGO in alpha-3. Why on earth? Simply because AN was taken by Dutch Antilles (now discontinued). The alpha-3 was mirrored on alpha-2, and makes an equally incomprehensible (by the man in the street) code. But their IOC and FIFA codes are ANG, and if I were to create a TLD to pretend I am authoritative for Angola, I would obviously choose ANG, not AGO. So to protect AGO is pointless. * Just take the time to browse the codes. Tell me which codes you would use to fake a countrys authority. For Algeria, DYA or ALG? For Denmark, DNK or DEN? For Ireland, IRL or EIR? What would you think about regional accepted codes, some of which have become or are becoming gTLDs, like CAT, SCO, etc. should we protect them also, on top of the ISO-3166-3 codes As ALAC, we should be concerned, IMHO, about avoiding consumer confusion. To protect country codes that are by and large unused and unknown by people unless they happen to correspond to widely known codes like IOC or FIFA or license plates, does not make a lot of sense to me. If we have a moratorium on new gTLDs (not an endless one, but a time frame that allows to have some serious thought about the shortcomings of the first run) we can possibly have promotion/education activities related to gTLDs in the areas (geographical, political, social, economic, and whatever else) that were not well served in the first run. I believe that in a couple of years countries would be sufficiently aware of the issues to raise an objection to the use by a rogue party of a TLD that they consider (rightfully or not but thats not ICANNs role to decide) their property. Cheers, Roberto
-----Messaggio originale----- Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large- bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Jaap Akkerhuis Inviato: mercoledì 23 settembre 2015 19:29 A: Seun Ojedeji Cc: At-Large Worldwide Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains
Seun Ojedeji writes:
If .NG is under ccNSO and .NGR under GNSO there is no guarantee that this would be the case. Could .NGR be run by a Registry based outside
Nigeria? Would this introduce competition to the local ccTLD? Would this
siphon money out of Nigeria rather than keeping it in the local economy?
I cannot resist to remark that NGR is not an ISO 3166 alpha-3 code. Check the database at <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/> for the code and notice it is actually NGA.
jaap _______________________________________________ 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
On 23 September 2015 at 18:54, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
While there are still a few ccTLDs that is still being run by registries based outside the region, I think that decision making process should remain with the respective countries. So such situation described above is a bottleneck that needs to be avoided at ICANN level; .NGA for instance should not be run under the GNSO. If the 3 letter TLD is to be opened as gTLD then it would be preferred to reserve the corresponding country codes for ccTLDs.
+1
That said, there is still the question of whether current ccTLD registries will be willing to maintain an extra tld.
Perhaps, but that's their call. They could always put a park page there. ;-) - Evan
So, then one would have alpha-3 code gTLDs being run with GNSO policies, in competition with alpha-2 code ccTLDs being run with ccNSO policies (+ GAC and other governmental policies as the case may be). I don't think so! BTW, that would be a clear invitation for numbers of governments to intervene directly in GNSO matters. Is that what one wants? Furthermore, ICANN, having decided that the IDN ccTLDs would be delegated to the same Registries as hold their existing ccTLDs ('fast track'), someone would no doubt point to that precedent if and when the question of delegating the alpha-3 codes might arise. Regards CW (In my personal capacity with no axe to grind: the alpha-3 code EUR will in any event be embargoed because it is also in ISO-4217, currency code for the €.) PS: Has anyone asked ISO? My recollection is that at the time the European Commission asked ISO specifically for permission to use the EU alpha-2 code as a ccTLD (they agreed). A fortiori, ISO might have views about how their alpha-3 codes could be used. On 23 Sep 2015, at 17:18, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Olivier, all
I understand the sentiments and I somewhat agree with you on the fact the there is need for some form of "power" distribution. I will personally say apart from power, orderliness and structure is another aspect we may be loosing once the 3 letter is opened up in the manner proposed. This was actually why I added a +1 to John as i read his mail to mean "let the the 3 letters be open to all" and maintain the 2 letters to ccTLDs". I don't know of any instance where a country(new) could not get alpha-2 codes. The alpha-2 is closer to the work of IANA as its what is also used within the IETF within IETF as well.
That said, there is also merit in reserving the corresponding alpha-3 letter of each country and then opening up to the Gs. The advantage in that is that some level of consistency will be ensured so the registry managing for instance .ng will also manage .ngr
Regards
On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 2:28 PM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote: Hello Tim & all,
I am not sure I'm 100% in agreement here. I have concerns that so far we've had ccTLDs that were running country-related TLDs and now we might see more Country Codes, this time 3-letter country codes, used and run as gTLDs - hence falling under the remit of the GNSO = more US-based legislation and less legislation that happens in the country itself. This, to me, smells like a concentration of more power within ICANN's walls, when if we insisted on keeping CCs (2 & 3 letters) in ccNSO hands, wouldn't it do the opposite? Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 23/09/2015 14:08, McTim wrote:
+1 to Karl and John.
Potential user confusion is not something I am concerned about as much as censorship and giving governments more sway inside ICANN. The GAC has already won far too many concessions OUTSIDE the GNSO policy arena, we shouldn't give them any more for minor reasons.
-- Cheers,
McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel
On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Karl Auerbach <karl@cavebear.com> wrote: On 09/22/2015 12:39 PM, John Levine wrote:
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
I fully agree with John Levine on this.
--karl--
_______________________________________________ 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
-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html
_______________________________________________ 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
-- ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Seun Ojedeji, Federal University Oye-Ekiti web: http://www.fuoye.edu.ng Mobile: +2348035233535 alt email: seun.ojedeji@fuoye.edu.ng
Bringing another down does not take you up - think about your action!
_______________________________________________ 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
My +1 to this sentiment/rationale. Regards Sent from my Asus Zenfone2 Kindly excuse brevity and typos. On 22 Sep 2015 20:39, "John Levine" <john.levine@cauce.org> wrote:
There are already 3-letter gTLDs that are conflicting with alpha-3 codes.
Whew, I thought I was the only person who noticed that. COM is the Comoros islands, that horse left the barn 30 years ago.
Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out.
I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already.
Regards, John Levine, john.levine@cauce.org CAUCE North America _______________________________________________ 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
I fully support John Levine opinion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: + 216 41 649 605 Mobile: + 216 98 330 114 Fax: + 216 70 853 376 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- -----Message d'origine----- De : at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] De la part de John Levine Envoyé : mardi 22 septembre 2015 20:39 À : ICANN At-Large list Objet : Re: [At-Large] At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains
There are already 3-letter gTLDs that are conflicting with alpha-3 codes.
Whew, I thought I was the only person who noticed that. COM is the Comoros islands, that horse left the barn 30 years ago. Every geographical area that's eligible for a country code has a two letter country code, and lots of existing software has special cases to treat two letter TLDs differently. (Yes, we know about the IDNs.) There are plenty of two letter codes left, they're not going to run out. I can think of no reason to reserve the remaining 3 letter country codes other than as a makework project for bureaucrats with too little to do. Surely we have enough of those already. Regards, John Levine, john.levine@cauce.org CAUCE North America _______________________________________________ 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 --- L'absence de virus dans ce courrier électronique a été vérifiée par le logiciel antivirus Avast. https://www.avast.com/antivirus
..and ++1 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:13 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
I note that I did not fully answer Maureen's questions.
The comments of my last message refer only to the ISO-defined three-letter strings. Full-length names (such as .deutchland) are not protected this way; though I believe the allocation of country-full-name strings to third parties to be stupid and generally against the public interest, the case against them is not as obvious as for the ISO codes.
Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete.
- Evan
On 22 September 2015 at 10:06, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
To me the answer is self-evident.
The codes that ICANN uses for ccTLDs, especially ones that are non-intuitive to foreigners (such as .ch for Switzerland, .za for South Africa or .kh for Cambodia) are based on an ISO standard, ISO 3166-1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1>, with one notable exception (use of ,uk when the ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB).
This same standard also defines three-lettter codes. Because of the definition of a publicly-understood standard, anything besides allocating these ISO codes to the appropriate ccTLDs would cause substantial public confusion.
- Evan
On 22 September 2015 at 09:09, 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
_______________________________________________ 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
Goodmorning, Are "foreigners" native English speakers? I do not believe anyone have problem to recognise Confédération Helvétique - Swiss Confederation, using 4 official administrative languages, that means: French, German, Italian and Romansh. Khmer is the autonym for the language of the nation of Cambodia, similar to Deutsch for the nation of Germany. Therefore .kh and .de, easy. Apparently even native English speakers know "Full-length names (such as .deutchland)" ;-)
The codes that ICANN uses for ccTLDs, especially ones that are non-intuitive to foreigners (such as .ch for Switzerland, .za for South Africa or .kh for Cambodia) are based on an ISO standard, ISO 3166-1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1>, with one notable exception (use of ,uk when the ISO code for the United Kingdom is
GB). Mathematicaly speaking you cannot have 250 alpha-2 codes, all of them with 2 initial letters of country name in foreign language (English). Not even with 2 inital letters corresponding to the autonym country name. Best, Elisabeth Porteneuve (yes, I work for ISO 3166) (no, I have no opinion about TLD names, not after 17 years of ICANN) Le 22/09/2015 10:13, Evan Leibovitch a écrit :
I note that I did not fully answer Maureen's questions.
The comments of my last message refer only to the ISO-defined three-letter strings. Full-length names (such as .deutchland) are not protected this way; though I believe the allocation of country-full-name strings to third parties to be stupid and generally against the public interest, the case against them is not as obvious as for the ISO codes.
Having said this, I personally believe that there should be a moratorium of *any* new gTLD applications until a full evaluation of the effect of the current expansion is complete.
- Evan
On 22 September 2015 at 10:06, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org <mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote:
To me the answer is self-evident.
The codes that ICANN uses for ccTLDs, especially ones that are non-intuitive to foreigners (such as .ch for Switzerland, .za for South Africa or .kh for Cambodia) are based on an ISO standard, ISO 3166-1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1>, with one notable exception (use of ,uk when the ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB).
This same standard also defines three-lettter codes. Because of the definition of a publicly-understood standard, anything besides allocating these ISO codes to the appropriate ccTLDs would cause substantial public confusion.
- Evan
On 22 September 2015 at 09:09, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto: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 <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
_______________________________________________ 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
On 23 September 2015 at 09:43, Porteneuve Elisabeth (labo) <elisabeth.porteneuve@latmos.ipsl.fr> wrote:
I do not believe anyone have problem to recognise Confédération Helvétique - Swiss Confederation, using 4 official administrative languages, that means: French, German, Italian and Romansh.
I stand by what I said. If you think that "Confédération Helvétique" is a globally-recognized name for Switzerland, you need to travel more ;-). But Switzerland seems uniquely weird in this way. It has four official languages, but national institutions either use three of them (post office and railway) or they abandon all of them and use English (the national airline) or Latin (the ccTLD). The only docs I have seen use all four official languages at once are government signage and letterhead. (And speaking of Latin, I would assert that more people recognize the term "Helvetica" as a font than a country.)
Khmer is the autonym for the language of the nation of Cambodia, similar to Deutsch for the nation of Germany. Therefore .kh and .de, easy.
Why do you assume that what comes easy to you comes easy to others?
Apparently even native English speakers know "Full-length names (such as .deutchland)" ;-)
Some, not all, not even most. Don't assume. (I had to see a hockey tournament to know the native full-length name of Finland (ccTLD: .fi). How many non-Scandinavians and non-sports-fans here would know it without looking it up?) (back on-topic} The full-country-name situation is wildly diverse in its multilingual state and can not really be policed. (could all possible multi-lingual forms of a country name -- such as "frankreich" -- be restricted?). OTOH, I still assert that ISO, an actual treaty body, has far more public authority and trust than ICANN could ever dream of having. As such, its designated three-letter names should remain off-limits. In any case, this may be moot to argue, at least for now, as I imagine that the GAC will be pretty forceful about this. - Evan
+1 -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 *Strategy, Planning, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Sep 22, 2015 at 3:06 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evan@telly.org> wrote:
To me the answer is self-evident.
The codes that ICANN uses for ccTLDs, especially ones that are non-intuitive to foreigners (such as .ch for Switzerland, .za for South Africa or .kh for Cambodia) are based on an ISO standard, ISO 3166-1 <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1>, with one notable exception (use of ,uk when the ISO code for the United Kingdom is GB).
This same standard also defines three-lettter codes. Because of the definition of a publicly-understood standard, anything besides allocating these ISO codes to the appropriate ccTLDs would cause substantial public confusion.
- Evan
On 22 September 2015 at 09:09, 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
-- Evan Leibovitch Geneva, CH
Em: evan at telly dot org Sk: evanleibovitch Tw: el56
_______________________________________________ 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
Maureen: 1. The ISO alpha-3 codes should be reserved in the same way as the alpha-2 codes, which are exclusively used for ccTLDs. The ISO-4217 alpha-3 codes should also be reserved because they represent currencies. For instance EUR represents the Euro (€) and definitely should not be used for anything other than official representation of the Euro. 2. I agree with Evan that there should be a moratorium on any new gTLDs until there has been a thorough evaluation of the existing new gTLD programme. In any event the whole issue of the representation of country names will go to the GAC if it is not already there. Regards Christopher On 22 Sep 2015, at 09:09, 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
I agree about the moratorium, but I strongly disagree about the alpha-3 ISO-3166 codes. There are already 3-letter gTLDs that are conflicting with alpha-3 codes. If there is a generalized use of alpha-3 codes, it will be extremely confusing if “some” 3-letter codes would not respect this rule. If, on the other hand, there is no generalized use of alpha-3 codes, unlike alpha-2 codes, then why reserve them? I think that we just have to accept the fact that there is a limit to what you can reserve for specific use J Cheers, Roberto Da: at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org [mailto:at-large-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] Per conto di Christopher Wilkinson Inviato: martedì 22 settembre 2015 11:26 A: Maureen Hilyard Cc: at-large@atlarge-lists.icann.org Oggetto: Re: [At-Large] At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains Maureen: 1. The ISO alpha-3 codes should be reserved in the same way as the alpha-2 codes, which are exclusively used for ccTLDs. The ISO-4217 alpha-3 codes should also be reserved because they represent currencies. For instance EUR represents the Euro (€) and definitely should not be used for anything other than official representation of the Euro. 2. I agree with Evan that there should be a moratorium on any new gTLDs until there has been a thorough evaluation of the existing new gTLD programme. In any event the whole issue of the representation of country names will go to the GAC if it is not already there. Regards Christopher On 22 Sep 2015, at 09:09, 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 <mailto:At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org> At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large At-Large Official Site: <http://atlarge.icann.org> http://atlarge.icann.org
Hi, thanks Maureen for forwarding the questionnaire I concur with Evan and Christopher but I'd like to add a note. On one side it does make sense to reserve ISO 3166-2 and 4217. On the other side, following he tradition set by .cat 10 years ago and some new gTLDs, (.bzh, .gal, .eus, etc) I'd propose to allow 3-char to gTLDS for communities ISO 396 could be a bit of a guide for that. thanks jordi El 22/09/15 a les 09:09, Maureen Hilyard ha escrit:
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
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
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
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
participants (19)
-
Ariel Liang -
Carlton Samuels -
Christian de Larrinaga -
Christopher Wilkinson -
Dev Anand Teelucksingh -
Evan Leibovitch -
Evan Leibovitch -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Jahangir Hossain -
John Levine -
Jordi Iparraguirre -
Karl Auerbach -
Maureen Hilyard -
McTim -
Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond -
Porteneuve Elisabeth (labo) -
Roberto Gaetano -
Seun Ojedeji -
Tijani BEN JEMAA