Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 07:46 Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:
On 14 Aug 2018, at 00:52, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Aug 2018, 13:08 Bastiaan Goslings, < bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote: Hi Greg,
Thanks a lot.
Without having any knowledge when it comes to history/context/previous & ongoing (WT5) related discussions, the points you raise make sense to me. And until someone manages to convince me otherwise, I agree with you and therefore do not support Carlos’ recommendation.
With regard to the:
Personally, I would be in favor of a recommendation that makes the current 3166 3-letter codes “unreserved" and open for applications, with a restriction that any application that seeks to associate the TLD with the related country or territory requires the consent or non-objection of that country or territory.
I do not know what this ‘restriction’ would look like specifically, but to me it almost sounds like you solved the .amazon case ;-)
SO: An applicant sure wouldn’t want to associate a TLD with a related country in his/her application if that will indeed pose a bottleneck for them, so I don't think Greg's proposal actually restrict anything in practice.
Maybe, and that is why I made the reservation, not knowing what the restriction would (neet to) look like. It would of course have to be enforceable.
SO: Hence it still seem the proposal of Carlos may still be the closest implementation scenario.
If the intent is to provide some level of restrictions then applicant certainly shouldn’t be a determinant of that.
I have not given this any thought but I’d imagine one can make the requirement part of the application procedure and have the applicant sign for this. And if then later on the TLD can demonstrably be ‘associated with the related country or territory’ that would be a breach of contract and the applicant would no longer be allowed to run the TLD. And e.g. would not be entitled to a refund of the application fees.
SO: Hmm...I guess the extent of the "demonstration" needs to be defined and unambiguous. I think in most cases looking at the TLD string should immediately demonstrate if it's related to the country/territory or not. It will become more complicated when the relationship is checked based on the applicant or the purpose of the string, both of which can be easily "gamed". Regards
On 13 Aug 2018, at 06:28, Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> wrote:
Here is an email (further down) I just sent to the WT5 list. In the
context of this discussion, I agree with Carlos that ISO 3166 3-letter codes shouldn't be reserved from delegation. The bold move would be making them available in this round, in some fashion to be determined, but it seems we don't have the time to give the options the attention they deserve. If we don't go that far, we could make some statement encouraging future groups to do something, but I have become wary of the idea of trying to prejudice that future discussion, since we don't have time to give the options the detailed discussion they deserve.
I've considered Carlos recommendation:
“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter
Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”
I have several problems with this. First, why give ccTLD managers a
role here? I presume Carlos means the "relevant ccTLD managers", but even then, the relationship between ccTLD manager and government varies wildly from ccTLD to ccTLD. I don't want to open a discussion about what's right or wrong about that (that is truly outside our remit), but there is no reason to replicate that witeh 3-letter codes. Second, where these 3-letter strings have other applications, why eliminate these from consideration? And if you don't why prejudice them and privilege governmental authorities? Some of these could be far more useful and relevant than a country-related 3 letter gTLD. A glaring example is .IOT for an Internet of Things TLD. Finally, who are these "public interest/public benefit entities"? I suppose this is also intended to be limited to "relevant" ones, but that opens a can of worms over identifying which ones are "relevant" and what "relevant" means. Can I found a non-profit corporation and bid for .IOT?
I think that, if we don't have the time to do this right, we should
recommend that a future GNSO Working Group deal with the issue of "unreserving" 3 letter codes and leave it at that.
Greg
Other email below:
A few thoughts on the ISO 3166 3-letter codes.
First, WT5 is fully competent to deal wit the issue of whether, when
and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3155 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated. These are in the gTLD space.
Second, I would strongly object to any restriction on 3-letter strings
that DO NOT match existing ISO 3166 letter codes. The "original" gTLDs were three letter strings -- .com, .net, .org, .gov. .mil, .int, .edu.
Third, there is no "tradition" of (or technological reason for) ISO
3166 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories. So why make that assumption now?
Fourth, I agree with Farzaneh that adding current ccTLD operators into
the mix as part of the privileged class makes this recommendation an unfathomable mess. This is not the time or the place to discuss the myriad ways that ccTLD operators do or don't relate to the countries that the ccTLD is related to. And let's certainly not get into the issues raised by ccTLDs that function as gTLDs but are beyond the reach of gTLD policy. Let's just keep the ccTLD situation "unique" and move away from that electrified fence. Replicating the current ccTLD situation in the 3-letter space would be a gross error in judgment.
Fifth, there are over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are
equivalent to strings with other meanings -- words in English or other languages, currently delegated gTLDs, or acronyms. Why should the future of these 3 letter strings have anything to do with any countries, where they have other significant meanings? Of course, nothing prevents a country or territory from applying for the related 3 letter code. The 3 letter codes with other meanings are:
CODE Meaning Related Country or Territory AGO English word Angola AND English word Andorra ANT English word Netherlands Antilles ARE English word United Arab Emirates ARM English word Armenia BEL Italian word Belgium BEN First name Benin BRB Acronym for “Be Right Back” Barbados CAN English word Canada COD English word Congo, the Democratic Republic of the COG English word Congo COM Current gTLD Comoros CUB English word Cuba DOM First name (short for “Dominic”); BDSM term Dominican Republic ESP Acronym for “Extra-Sensory Perception” Spain EST Word in various languages Estonia FIN English word Finland FRA Italian France FRO English word Faroe Islands GAB English word Gabon GEO English word Georgia GIN English word Guinea GUM English word Guam GUY English word Guyana HUN English word Hungary IOT Acronym for “Internet of Things” British Indian Ocean Territory IRL Acronym for “Internet Resource Locater” or “In Real Life” Ireland JAM English word Jamaica KEN First name Kenya KIR Drink Kiribati LIE English word Liechtenstein LUX English word Luxembourg MAC Popular line of computers Macao MAR English word Morocco NCL Acronym for “National Consumers League” or “Norwegian Cruise Lines” New Caledonia NOR English word Norway PAN English word Panama PER English word Peru POL Short for “Politician” Poland PRY English word Paraguay QAT Narcotic leaf Qatar SAU German word Saudi Arabia SUR French word Suriname TON English word, French word Tonga TUN English word Tunisia VAT English word; Acronym for “Value Added Tax” Holy See (Vatican City State)
I would recommend that we either make a policy determination now,
including a statement of rationale, or that we just leave this for a future process. A tossed-off non-recommendation that seeks to limit or prejudice future policy work is really the worst of both worlds, and should be avoided.
Personally, I would be in favor of a recommendation that makes the
current 3166 3-letter codes "unreserved" and open for applications, with a restriction that any application that seeks to associate the TLD with the related country or territory requires the consent or non-objection of that country or territory.
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg