I support this formulation as well. satish On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 3:25 AM, carlos dionisio aguirre < carlosaguirre62@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear all, for me, the best option in the 3 letter country codes, till now, is the Carlos Raul Gutierrez proposal, for that my position is in this sense. Im waiting voices from my region, who has not position on this point yet.

Carlos Dionisio Aguirre

Enviado desde mi smartphone Samsung Galaxy.

-------- Mensaje original -------- De: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Fecha: 11/8/18 15:44 (GMT-03:00) Para: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>, Olivier Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com>, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> Cc: Javier Rúa-Jovet <javrua@gmail.com> Asunto: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. *

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez"

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Hello Olivier. There are those who want the 3 letter TLDs to be completely unreserved. I think this is a middle group, but many won't see it that way. Marita On 8/12/2018 9:26 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:

Dear Maureen,

thanks for asking this question. For various reasons, I have been staying away from WT5 work, but the proposal from Carlos makes sense so I would support it.

The only question I might have is "what is the purpose of the proposal?" because I can certainly see some communities arguing against reserving ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes. Would this be the current list, as of 18 August 2018? Or would this block off all 3 letter TLDs thus reserving 3 letter TLDs for any potential future addition to the ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes? Is the GNSO ready to hand off potentially valuable 3 letter TLDs to the CC community?

So to me, the purpose of the proposal appears to be to record an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Would that put the issue to bed? Probably not. Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 11/08/2018 20:43, Maureen Hilyard wrote:

...

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required _by Tuesday??_.

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week  and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. *

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “/The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names/"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez"

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

All, Although I admit I do think the Gutiérrez proposal is fundamentally sound, as WT5 co-chair I should favor my role as ALAC facilitator over any “active participant” role in the work track. As such, I support and encourage all the internal discussion and debate this group can have on this, in order to weigh in collective or individual opinions into the work track; and I will make sure any such position is heard and taken into account. I also will say that if ALAC manages to rally around any position that is supported by a diverse group of members, a position that is not “partisan” but truly consensual, that would be perceived and objectively be a great triumph of the multistakeholder model. Keep up the good work! Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua

On Aug 12, 2018, at 4:52 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

Well, I hope that Olivier, Jonathan and Javier have their heads together over that one! :)

You might have to join them Justine. Its alright if we ask this amongst ourselves and try to reach some supportive resolution, but if someone raises that within the WT5 we could go on again for another 3 weeks of the same arguments.

We haven't had much feedback on Greg's suggestions made for At-Large to discuss, or have we been swamped?? Perhaps put that on the CPWG agenda.

Maureen

...

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote: Maureen,

With reference to Carlos Raul Gutierrez's proposal of:

"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.”

While I believe the existing policy of permanent reservation/non-availability of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes is undesirable, hence I would also support the call for making such exact matches available to and only to the entities suggested by Carlos, I am mindful that we should perhaps, if we can, supplement such a call with a proposition to deal with exact 3 letter matches that have already been delegated -- ".com" comes to mind. Also, in view of potential future changes to the ISO 3166-1 list.

In other words, if we make ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes available, how should we deal with the Union of the Comoros' then right to and/or potential desire for (the already delegated) ".com" gTLD?

Thanks,

Justine Chew -----

...

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 02:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??.

This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well.

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Marita, I think you misunderstand me. It would be unthinkable to reverse the already delegated ".com". I am simply asking -- in light of the Carlos' proposal and following the ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter code list, the Union of Comoros would have then been entitled to apply for ".com" -- since that is no longer available what alternative should be considered for the Union of Comoros that would not disadvantage them (assuming they wanted to apply for their 3 letter code)? Justine ----- On Sun, 12 Aug 2018, 17:19 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:

I would say that legacy TLDs like .com are not going to be affected. Since this is an evolving system, there will always be anomalies. GTLDs like .com would simply be grandfathered (or grandmothered?)

Marita

On 8/12/2018 10:26 AM, Justine Chew wrote:

Maureen,

With reference to Carlos

Raul Gutierrez's proposal of:

"*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.*”

While I believe the existing policy of permanent reservation/non-availability of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes is undesirable, hence I would also support the call for making such exact matches available to and only to the entities suggested by Carlos, I am mindful that we should perhaps, if we can, supplement such a call with a proposition to deal with exact 3 letter matches that have already been delegated -- ".com" comes to mind. Also, in view of potential future changes to the ISO 3166-1 list.

In other words, if we make ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes available, how should we deal with the Union of the Comoros' then right to and/or potential desire for (the already delegated) ".com" gTLD?

Thanks,

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 02:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. *

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Very right Marita. By the way I do support the proposal of Carlos Raul Gutierrez. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- Tijani BEN JEMAA Executive Director Mediterranean Federation of Internet Associations (FMAI) Phone: +216 98 330 114 +216 52 385 114 -----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Le 12 août 2018 à 19:09, Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> a écrit :

You are right, I did misunderstand you. In ISO3166-1 Comoros has been assigned the 3 ltr code com. Oops, can't undo that I'm afraid. Carlos' proposal offers some respite. At least Comoros would not be competing with a brand for whatever 3 ltr string they choose.

Marita

On 8/12/2018 6:15 PM, Justine Chew wrote:

...

Marita,

I think you misunderstand me. It would be unthinkable to reverse the already delegated ".com".

I am simply asking -- in light of the Carlos' proposal and following the ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter code list, the Union of Comoros would have then been entitled to apply for ".com" -- since that is no longer available what alternative should be considered for the Union of Comoros that would not disadvantage them (assuming they wanted to apply for their 3 letter code)?

Justine -----

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018, 17:19 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net> <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>>> wrote:

I would say that legacy TLDs like .com are not going to be affected. Since this is an evolving system, there will always be anomalies. GTLDs like .com would simply be grandfathered (or grandmothered?)

Marita

On 8/12/2018 10:26 AM, Justine Chew wrote:

...

Maureen,

With reference to Carlos Raul Gutierrez's proposal of:

"/*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*./”

While I believe the existing policy of permanent reservation/non-availability of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes is undesirable, hence I would also support the call for making such exact matches available to and only to the entities suggested by Carlos, I am mindful that we should perhaps, if we can, supplement such a call with a proposition to deal with exact 3 letter matches that have already been delegated -- ".com" comes to mind. Also, in view of potential future changes to the ISO 3166-1 list.

In other words, if we make ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes available, how should we deal with the Union of the Comoros' then right to and/or potential desire for (the already delegated) ".com" gTLD?

Thanks,

Justine Chew -----

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 02:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>> wrote:

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required _by Tuesday??_.

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. *

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “/The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names/"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <mailto:CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <mailto:CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <mailto:CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

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.

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos 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. If the intent is to provide some level of restrictions then applicant certainly shouldn't be a determinant of that. Regards

regards Bastiaan

...

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

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

Sent from my mobile Kindly excuse brevity and typos On Tue, 14 Aug 2018, 09:38 Bastiaan Goslings, <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> wrote:

...

On 14 Aug 2018, at 10:02, Seun Ojedeji <seun.ojedeji@gmail.com> wrote:

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.

As I said, I agree with the points Greg made, so for me the ‘hence’ is not applicable here.

SO: Sure I understood your stand, guess I was using your point as well to justify mine. ;-)

...

...

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.

I think the ‘over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are equivalent to strings with other meanings’ prove that is not the case. Again, .iot being a ‘glaring example’.

SO: Well we have over 240 of the 3 letter codes, I guess it's a matter of which is a lesser complication than the other. ;-) Otherwise my concern below will still be a bottleneck that then applies beyond 45 of the codes

...

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

Dear Justine, On 12/08/2018 10:26, Justine Chew wrote:

In other words, if we make ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes available, how should we deal with the Union of the Comoros' then right to and/or potential desire for (the already delegated) ".com" gTLD?   

Standard conflict that we've seen ever since the beginning of this discussion in the mid nineties. Yes, this is a problem. One of the problems is that some people think these days that the DNS is so tight and that there cannot be exceptions. Such rigidity is the base for a perfect bureaucracy. Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) both the DNS and various other aspects of the Internet have their exceptions. Take ISO3166 & .UK for example. Some bureaucrats wanted to move the .UK TLD to .GB in the early nineties. They backtracked soon enough when they found out some of the repercussions, costs & political implications of the difference between the United Kingdom for Great Britain & Northern Ireland vs. Great Britain (England, Scotland, Wales) itself. So there could be other exceptions. Kindest regards, Olivier

Thanks Justine, I fully concur with your thoughts. Also, I've suggested on a WT5 call that there should be a automated check before formal submission and notice given to the applicant if the applied string conflicts with a geographic name. So the applicant if unaware of the string being a geoname can before submitting have discussions with the relevant government authority to ensure that a letter of support or non-objection can be obtained and filed with the application. Instead of formally filing (and paying), then being rejected by the Geonames panel as being a geographic name. Dev Anand On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 10:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time.

Regards,

Justine Chew -----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com> wrote:

...

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??.

This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well.

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

...

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@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

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ 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

Dear Carlton, I am going to play devil’s advocate now; RFC 1591 is very clear here: “These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166” “two letter country codes from ISO-3166” equal the ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 code elements. This excludes Alpha-3 code elements. If you want this changed: just go ahead and create consensus among the Internet Community that RFC 1591 should be scrapped; and replaced with one that includes Alpha-3. Good luck. Until there is a revision; 1591 stands. Yes, Jon also wrote, that it will be unlikely that more TLDs would be created – well: the unlikely happened. So what? He factored it in – just thought it would be unlikely. Actually to be fair I do not see any 3-letter country codes in the wild very often. Very rare actually. But IF I see one, then it’s usually very clear that it is meant to identify a COUNTRY. E.g. at sports events. Or as country identifier at car stickers. Even there more often than not I do not see THREE LETTER codes. Germany for example uses “D”. Belarus uses “BY”. My tiny 2 Million country Latvia uses “LV”. Belgium “B”. France “F”. But in the few times when they use 3-letter codes it’s often not even the Alpha-3 code. Cameroon uses “CAM” (a new gTLD btw) and NOT “CMR”. Canada uses “CDN” instead of “CAN”. So there is absolutely no clear pattern; or smth the general public might got used to. But still: Yes, when I would see a car with “BOL” as country designator sticker, I might be able to guess “Bolivia”. But I already have a basic information: It’s a COUNTRY sticker, so I know it should be a COUNTRY; and how many countries start with “Bolxxxxxx”? So it is not really knowledge – it is more an educated GUESS! In Olympics Switzerland is SUI and not CHE! I can assure you that almost nobody in Germany (Switzerland’s neighbor!) would connect “CHE” with Switzerland. I didn’t know – and I really, really pay attention to that stuff. Their car plate is “CH” btw. Where has anybody seen “CHE” anyway? Let’s face reality; in all of the above cases we KNEW already that the 3-letter code is a country identifier. But gTLDs are presenting themselves BY DEFINITION always only as full domain names; and there is just no HINT that the TLD is a country identifier. You will never ever see a “.deu” standalone. It would be always something like www.hotels.deu <http://www.hotels.deu> ! And if you would show the domain hotels.deu to a random 100 Germans – I bet that at minimum 95 would NOT create a connotation between “.deu” and “Germany”. Or show someone the domain www.hotels.che <http://www.hotels.che> ! They wouldn’t know that “.che” must be a country code – it could be smth akin to .xyz, .icu (“I See You” – a new .xyz variation on the market). Do you really think that ANYBODY who saw a domain hotels.che would affiliate it with hotels in Switzerland (or a hotel booking platform based in Switzeland)? We are looking at all of this from an ivory tower perspective – and sometimes forget to factor in reality (and I am not pointing fingers here to others only – I include myself!) If we are requiring Government support from the assigned country then we are fine, aren’t we? If the GAC member and the ccTLD operator would be ultra-concerned to assign such string to a third party – or as a gTLD in the first place: just make sure to inform the relevant Government authority and request to “reserve” the string until a global solution is found. But don’t deny Governments that are willing to allow such registration in the gTLD policy framework to go ahead. We are not babysitters here – Governments are not stupid. But a CLEAR WARNING language right in the “letter of non-objection form”: “ICANN advises all Government authorities to NOT support country name or ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code based gTLD applications at this time. ICANN will likely create special application policy for these names in the future and Governments are STRONGLY advised to not granting support until these policies are in place. If a Government still wishes to support such application already now then ICANN requires a consultation between the signing Government authority and the countries GAC member and the respective ccTLD manager; with a short excerpt of the meeting minutes attached to the application. This to make sure that the Government has heard all affiliated parties before deciding to grant support.” Thoughts? Thanks, Alexander.berlin -----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Carlton Samuels Sent: Donnerstag, 16. August 2018 19:29 To: Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Very interesting indeed. SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit. ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so? If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm]. My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept. So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace. -Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels* *Mobile: 876-818-1799Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* ============================= On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew < <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that

WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how

strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be

applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the

position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered

for deliberation by (yet)

a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

*3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard* I don't believe it is

desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO

3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next

round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made

that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used

for top level domain names connected

with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that

Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap

with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented

on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very

least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the

first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO

3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the

case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available

-- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available

for application by applicants who either represent the Union of

Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the

Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for

a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to

be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO

3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be

subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country

designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative"

special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun

of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things.

In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly,

the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms

which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about

who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could

be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public

interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively

successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I

don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the "

relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also

apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in

place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same

breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public

authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be

subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection

from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my

opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which

match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public

authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in

respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD

(downstream

even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership

framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution

mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the

parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also,

the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public

authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a

'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public

authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option.

Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are

typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective

pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the

territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter

strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be

treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

*3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard* I also don't believe it

is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on

the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the

next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available

for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with

exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over

time.

Regards,

Justine Chew

-----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M < <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> 6.Internet@gmail.com>

wrote:

...

...

...

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <

...

<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

...

...

...

Hi everyone

...

...

...

...

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that

...

...

there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process

...

...

on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on

...

...

each of the key issues that are being discussed.

...

...

...

...

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos

...

...

Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this

...

...

process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a

...

...

reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken

...

...

place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The

...

...

ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.

...

...

...

...

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received

...

...

by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare

...

...

for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an

...

...

ALAC opinion as well. *

...

...

...

...

“Dear Annebeth,

...

...

...

...

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track

...

...

record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter

...

...

geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in

...

...

France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

...

...

...

...

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public

...

...

interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible

...

...

-i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final

...

...

revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter

...

...

codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the

...

...

relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may

...

...

want to consider recommending whether any future

...

...

application/revision/delegation process to be established (either

...

...

generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should

...

...

determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as

...

...

relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"

...

...

...

...

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

...

...

...

...

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter

...

...

Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers

...

...

and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

...

...

...

...

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN

...

could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and

...

ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules,

...

conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of

...

ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some

...

operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS

...

works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in

...

considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in

...

some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of

...

their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who

...

operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote

...

Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are

...

deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for

...

ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS,

...

somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the

...

fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would

...

be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical

...

expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider

...

with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate

...

criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies

...

for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

...

...

Sivasubramanian M

...

...

...

...

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking

...

...

recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if

...

...

it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against

...

...

a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

...

...

...

...

Thanks to all,

...

...

...

...

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez"

...

...

_______________________________________________

...

...

CPWG mailing list

...

...

<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> CPWG@icann.org

...

...

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

...

...

_______________________________________________

...

...

registration-issues-wg mailing list

...

...

<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org

...

...

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

...

...

...

...

...

--

...

Sivasubramanian M

...

Please send all replies to <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> 6.Internet@gmail.com

...

...

_______________________________________________

...

CPWG mailing list

...

<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> CPWG@icann.org

...

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

...

_______________________________________________

CPWG mailing list

<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> CPWG@icann.org

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________

registration-issues-wg mailing list

<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

Dear Greg, all, The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own. All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code. The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries. For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code. ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too. Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Carlton, I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc. So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making. It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion.... I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Very interesting indeed. SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit. ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so? If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm]. My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept. So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes: I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG. Notwithstanding, 3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games. In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country. I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available. As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply. As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework. Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO. Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing. Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere. 3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time. Regards, Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed. With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??. This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. “Dear Annebeth, As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names" My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is: “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.” +1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS. Sivasubramanian M This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list. Thanks to all, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> -- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=tefFdq9s2ROK22bsz3B%2BB2eX0ShxHumqtwn6iuPA3No%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=J3gEzfwidT2dFMv5aAXSu3t0iPUbZL4s1zbBLV3tAXc%3D&reserved=0>

Indeed. I echo your thought. Very well written by Yrjo. Best Regards, Anupam Agrawal | ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 - Secretariat | | Corporate Industry Forums & Standards Cell | Tata Consultancy Services | T: +91 33 6636 8561; VOIP: 433 8561; M: +91 990 399 2838 | From: "Marita Moll" <mmoll@ca.inter.net> To: cpwg@icann.org Date: 20-08-2018 11:53 Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Sent by: "registration-issues-wg" <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> Excellent points. Some of these abbreviations become so common we don't even see them anymore. They are just there and we know intuitively what they stand for. Thank you. Marita On 8/19/2018 7:15 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: Dear Greg, all, The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own. All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code. The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries. For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code. ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too. Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion. Best, Yrjö From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Carlton, I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc. So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making. It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion.... I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote: Very interesting indeed. SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit. ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so? If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm]. My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept. So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes: I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG. Notwithstanding, 3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games. In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country. I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available. As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply. As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework. Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO. Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing. Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere. 3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time. Regards, Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com> wrote: On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote: Hi everyone If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed. With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??. This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. “Dear Annebeth, As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names" My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is: “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.” +1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS. Sivasubramanian M This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list. Thanks to all, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@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 -- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 =====-----=====-----===== Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you

There could be another line of thought to these. Perhaps, under a new policy create and ensure without the need of aligning with ISO to set a new three letter word to countries. We need to see potential further than what stops us from moving forward. I also think we need to find alternatives than status-quo all the time to leave it to others.

On Aug 20, 2018, at 10:26, Anupam Agrawal <anupam.agrawal@tcs.com <mailto:anupam.agrawal@tcs.com>> wrote:

Indeed. I echo your thought.

Very well written by Yrjo.

Best Regards, Anupam Agrawal

| ISO/IEC JTC1 SC7 - Secretariat | | Corporate Industry Forums & Standards Cell | Tata Consultancy Services | T: +91 33 6636 8561; VOIP: 433 8561; M: +91 990 399 2838 |

From: "Marita Moll" <mmoll@ca.inter.net <mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net>> To: cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Date: 20-08-2018 11:53 Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Sent by: "registration-issues-wg" <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org>>

Excellent points. Some of these abbreviations become so common we don't even see them anymore. They are just there and we know intuitively what they stand for. Thank you.

Marita

On 8/19/2018 7:15 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: Dear Greg, all,

The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own.

All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code.

The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries.

For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code.

ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too.

Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion.

Best, Yrjö

From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> <mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org <mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Carlton,

I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc.

So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making.

It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion....

I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial.

Best regards,

Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com <mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Very interesting indeed.

SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit.

ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so?

If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm].

My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept.

So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace.

-Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com <mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time.

Regards,

Justine Chew -----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??.

This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well.

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com <mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org <mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg>

=====-----=====-----===== Notice: The information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it may contain confidential or privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, any dissemination, use, review, distribution, printing or copying of the information contained in this e-mail message and/or attachments to it are strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us by reply e-mail or telephone and immediately and permanently delete the message and any attachments. Thank you

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> LinkedIn: linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> "Life is a Beach, it all depends at how you look at it"

I thank you for outlining these facts sah. -Carlton On Sun, 19 Aug 2018, 12:15 pm Yrjö Länsipuro, <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote:

Dear Greg, all,

The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own.

All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code.

The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries.

For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code.

ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too.

Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion.

Best, Yrjö

------------------------------ *From:* registration-issues-wg < registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> *Sent:* Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM *To:* Carlton Samuels *Cc:* cpwg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Carlton,

I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc.

So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making.

It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion....

I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial.

Best regards,

Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com> wrote:

Very interesting indeed.

SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit.

ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so?

If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm].

My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept.

So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace.

-Carlton ============================== *Carlton A Samuels*

*Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround* =============================

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

*3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard* I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

*3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard* I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time.

Regards,

Justine Chew -----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. *

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

Good afternoon: We seem to be conducting two parallel discussions; so be it. Here is my recent posting to the PDP on ISO 3166: CW ---------- Mensaje original ---------- De: "lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Fecha: 19 de agosto de 2018 a las 16:28 Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] ISO-3166 WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Good afternoon: The length and complexity of the current Threads are such that a reasonably prompt comprehensive reply would be impossible, so I shall reply severally in the next few days, to the main points. Regarding ISO 3166: This in an International Standard. Usually, responsible entities, both public and private respect International standards (even if they are not mandated in law). The fact that in his wisdom, Jon Postel chose to use the 2 letter codes for ccTLDs at that time, does not detract from the validity of the rest of the 3166 Standard. The fact that a number of ISO 3 letter codes correspond to generic (EN/ASCII) words is immaterial. No one has ever said that ALL generic words (in how many languages and scripts?) are fair game for expropriation as gTLDs. In any event, it is absolutely essential that these country-related codes are used by and for and in the corresponding jurisdictions. The idea that there may be extraterritorial 'registry families' of ISO three letter codes, whether for geo- or non-geo purposes, will not fly. In short, should some of us in WT5 (and it seems that there are some) wish to change the designation of ISO codes, let us go to Geneva and the 3166 maintenance agency and ask them, not to ICANN. Regarding the Comores/.com argument, may I say that there are several decisions of the National Science Foundation (US NSF) from the 1980's with which I would have demurred, if asked. The Internet has got used to living with 'mistakes' from the past. But that is no argument for extending bad precedents to the whole of the DNS in the future. NO. Let us bear in mind that the policies and rules that shall be applied in the next 'rounds' would have to apply globally and should be immunised from the vagaries of the accumulated (EN/ASCII) decisions of the past. Regards Christopher Wilkinson

Dear Yrjö, I am sorry to be late in responding and putting some sand in the works, especially since many people agreed with you, but most of the examples you cite below do NOT use ISO3166. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_alphabetic_country_codes So would that put even more 3 letter codes on a reserved list? Kindest regards, Olivier On 19/08/2018 19:15, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

Dear Greg, all,

The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own.

All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code.

The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries.

For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code.

ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too.

Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion.

Best, Yrjö

________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Carlton,

I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc.

So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making.

It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion....

I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial.

Best regards,

Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Very interesting indeed.

SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit.

ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so?

If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm].

My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept.

So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace.

-Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time.

Regards,

Justine Chew -----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??.

This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well.

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0>

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=tefFdq9s2ROK22bsz3B%2BB2eX0ShxHumqtwn6iuPA3No%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=J3gEzfwidT2dFMv5aAXSu3t0iPUbZL4s1zbBLV3tAXc%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html

Dear Marita, all, To my knowledge, nobody has suggested reserving all OIC and FIFA three-letter codes, at least I didn't. I just pointed out that a significant number of countries are identified by their ISO 3166 three-letter codes in the Olympic Games and in FIFA tournaments - more than one hundred in both cases - as an illustration of the geographic use of the ISO 3166 three-letter code that is visible and meaningful to end users. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Marita Moll <mmoll@ca.inter.net> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 11:02 AM To: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Arghhh!!! Two steps forward, one step back.:-( No, I don't think putting more 3 letter codes on reservation would fly. We have to stick to the list ICANN is currently working with if we even get to the point of agreement that these should be reserved. Marita On 8/21/2018 9:20 AM, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote: Dear Yrjö, I am sorry to be late in responding and putting some sand in the works, especially since many people agreed with you, but most of the examples you cite below do NOT use ISO3166. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_alphabetic_country_codes<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FComparison_of_alphabetic_country_codes&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=FMKYvJ8BIbJPOkgfDM2%2BMiawBbllZC5johEumiWwsrI%3D&reserved=0> So would that put even more 3 letter codes on a reserved list? Kindest regards, Olivier On 19/08/2018 19:15, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote: Dear Greg, all, The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own. All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code. The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries. For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code. ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too. Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion. Best, Yrjö ________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org><mailto:greg@isoc-ny.org> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org> Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Carlton, I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc. So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making. It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion.... I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial. Best regards, Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com><mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Very interesting indeed. SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit. ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so? If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm]. My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept. So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace. -Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround ============================= On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com><mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes: I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG. Notwithstanding, 3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games. In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country. I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available. As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply. As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework. Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO. Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing. Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere. 3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time. Regards, Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com><mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com><mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>> wrote: On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com><mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com><mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed. With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??. This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. “Dear Annebeth, As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names" My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is: “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.” +1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS. Sivasubramanian M This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list. Thanks to all, Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=tnry3aluAWbQkTHKP9pcE6ThTFdNUVTJYtF%2FwVxW02U%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=FF1gnN%2BB2mTfQ8VGpvLhd%2BxY2h3iAsjxUorCp2ywrd0%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> -- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com><mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com><mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=tnry3aluAWbQkTHKP9pcE6ThTFdNUVTJYtF%2FwVxW02U%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=tnry3aluAWbQkTHKP9pcE6ThTFdNUVTJYtF%2FwVxW02U%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=FF1gnN%2BB2mTfQ8VGpvLhd%2BxY2h3iAsjxUorCp2ywrd0%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org><mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=tnry3aluAWbQkTHKP9pcE6ThTFdNUVTJYtF%2FwVxW02U%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=tefFdq9s2ROK22bsz3B%2BB2eX0ShxHumqtwn6iuPA3No%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=tefFdq9s2ROK22bsz3B%2BB2eX0ShxHumqtwn6iuPA3No%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org><mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=FF1gnN%2BB2mTfQ8VGpvLhd%2BxY2h3iAsjxUorCp2ywrd0%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=J3gEzfwidT2dFMv5aAXSu3t0iPUbZL4s1zbBLV3tAXc%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=J3gEzfwidT2dFMv5aAXSu3t0iPUbZL4s1zbBLV3tAXc%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=tnry3aluAWbQkTHKP9pcE6ThTFdNUVTJYtF%2FwVxW02U%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge-lists.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fgtld-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=Y1OHUiHaUyUHQhKRjCR3KkLSsXHHL43Z2qfIOY6YSmM%3D&reserved=0> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity.icann.org%2Fdisplay%2Fatlarge%2FNew%2BGTLDs&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=zLbn7Ne%2Flq%2FYlt%2BoG6c%2FsiqHN1maLvM2uDX7CClClpI%3D&reserved=0> -- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD http://www.gih.com/ocl.html<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gih.com%2Focl.html&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915430374&sdata=QCoE%2FOVe7v9tWUCs41vPIhEWj%2BnSB8Jns9IrwIpB4wk%3D&reserved=0> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam03.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C9c37cabeaa42464334c608d60c32652b%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636709807915586632&sdata=3T%2FcbwriL8mIdV%2B3PbsZyWZaV98fTMhQrIrprVMxPB8%3D&reserved=0>

Yes. I suspect it would have been too easy to have been able to make it fly... Good try Yrjo. I thought it was a great idea.. Maureen On Mon, Aug 20, 2018 at 10:10 PM, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com

wrote:

Dear Olivier,

Both the Wikipedia list and the one I used as my reference ( http://www.statoids.com/wab.html) indicate that IOC and FIFA use the ISO 3166-1 3-letter code for well over one hundred countries and territories. Not a majority (of a total of 249 listed), you're right, but still enough to create confusion.

Best,

Yrjö

------------------------------ *From:* Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> *Sent:* Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:20 AM *To:* Yrjö Länsipuro; Greg Shatan; Carlton Samuels; cpwg@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Dear Yrjö,

I am sorry to be late in responding and putting some sand in the works, especially since many people agreed with you, but most of the examples you cite below do NOT use ISO3166. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_alphabetic_country_codes <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikiped...>

So would that put even more 3 letter codes on a reserved list?

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 19/08/2018 19:15, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

Dear Greg, all,

The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own.

All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code.

The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries.

For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code.

ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too.

Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion.

Best, Yrjö

________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org> <greg@isoc-ny.org> Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Carlton,

I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc.

So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making.

It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion....

I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial.

Best regards,

Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels <carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com> <carlton.samuels@gmail.com>> wrote: Very interesting indeed.

SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit.

ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so?

If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm].

My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept.

So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace.

-Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com> <justine.chew@gmail.com>> wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time.

Regards,

Justine Chew -----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M <6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> <6.Internet@gmail.com>> wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>> wrote: Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??.

This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well.

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <CPWG@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=N%2F7vT1gBhIRRRoElRYlQxeZbQFDNu71JqqlsErwMlzU%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing listregistration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=Iud2xq8JgjJfzAiKMkvji7EmyOaY9q4pCDVdvhTQWKo%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com> <6.Internet@gmail.com>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <CPWG@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=N%2F7vT1gBhIRRRoElRYlQxeZbQFDNu71JqqlsErwMlzU%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <CPWG@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=N%2F7vT1gBhIRRRoElRYlQxeZbQFDNu71JqqlsErwMlzU%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing listregistration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=Iud2xq8JgjJfzAiKMkvji7EmyOaY9q4pCDVdvhTQWKo%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> <CPWG@icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=N%2F7vT1gBhIRRRoElRYlQxeZbQFDNu71JqqlsErwMlzU%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=tefFdq9s2ROK22bsz3B%2BB2eX0ShxHumqtwn6iuPA3No%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...> _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing listregistration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> <registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org>https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cd5022cae8b0642e4befc08d607368e2f%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636704328226892592&sdata=Iud2xq8JgjJfzAiKMkvji7EmyOaY9q4pCDVdvhTQWKo%3D&reserved=0><https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=J3gEzfwidT2dFMv5aAXSu3t0iPUbZL4s1zbBLV3tAXc%3D&reserved=0> <https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.o...>

_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing listGTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fatlarge-li...>

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcommunity....>

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhDhttp://www.gih.com/ocl.html <https://eur04.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.gih.com...>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Thanks, Yrjö I think we need to base this discussion as much as possible on facts and sound reasoning, and I commend you for contributing to that. I am new to this topic, and I said earlier I agreed with points Greg made ‘until someone manages to convince me otherwise.’ You were the first to give me some additional food for thought, but I am still inclined to agree with Greg and also Roberto. I doubt whether we proactively need to reserve (block usage?) of valuable resources, the delegation of which outside of the cc space could arguably be beneficial for end-users too, only because of some potential ‘confusion’ for users… For me personally, sticking to ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 for country codes is less confusing than also introducing, i.e. reserving the alpha 3 codes for, new 3 letter ccTLDs. In line with RFC 159. I am aware of and sensitive to governmental/countries’ interests. I think an applicant for an ISO 3166-1 alpha 3 code would therefore need to commit to not associate the TLD with a country or territory, and if after delegation the applicant would breach this clause there would need to be sanctions as I suggested before. Unless the country or territory does not object. -Bastiaan

On 21 Aug 2018, at 10:10, Yrjö Länsipuro <yrjo_lansipuro@hotmail.com> wrote: clear Dear Olivier,

Both the Wikipedia list and the one I used as my reference (http://www.statoids.com/wab.html) indicate that IOC and FIFA use the ISO 3166-1 3-letter code for well over one hundred countries and territories. Not a majority (of a total of 249 listed), you're right, but still enough to create confusion.

Best,

Yrjö

From: Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2018 10:20 AM To: Yrjö Länsipuro; Greg Shatan; Carlton Samuels; cpwg@icann.org Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Dear Yrjö,

I am sorry to be late in responding and putting some sand in the works, especially since many people agreed with you, but most of the examples you cite below do NOT use ISO3166. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_alphabetic_country_codes

So would that put even more 3 letter codes on a reserved list?

Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 19/08/2018 19:15, Yrjö Länsipuro wrote:

...

Dear Greg, all,

The geo-use of ISO 3166 3-letter codes today includes many applications that come pretty close to the end-user. One can assume a certain level of awareness of them and of their connection to the relevant countries, especially to one's own.

All machine-readable travel documents (passport, visas) indicate the nationality of the bearer using the ISO-3166 3-letter code.

The International Olympic Committee uses ISO 3166 3-letter code for teams from 129 countries, FIFA for teams from 152 countries.

For 27 countries, the international car licence plate code equals the ISO 3166 3-letter code.

ISO 3166 3-letter code is also used for countries by World Integrated Trade Solutions databases, which serve the World Bank, WTO, UNCTAD, UN Statistical Commission, International Trade Centre... A few end-users there, too.

Using ISO 3166 3-letter codes as TLD's not connected with the relevant country would inevitably invite end user confusion.

Best, Yrjö

________________________________ From: registration-issues-wg <registration-issues-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> on behalf of Greg Shatan <greg@isoc-ny.org>

Sent: Saturday, August 18, 2018 2:05 AM To: Carlton Samuels Cc: cpwg@icann.org

Subject: Re: [registration-issues-wg] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

Carlton,

I think you are thinking about ISO-3166 in a way that doesn’t reflect the history, as I understand what happened. When the idea of country-related TLDs came up, nobody wanted ICANN (and its predecessors) to be “in the business” of deciding what is or isn’t a country, nor did they want to get into the business of inventing or deciding what constituted the appropriate country-related TLD (or to resolve possible overlaps like Austria/Australia). So they “borrowed” the ISO 3166 list of countries and territories to deal with the first issue, and they borrowed the ISO-3166 2-letter codes to resolve the second issue. The 3-letter codes were just left alone and were never part of the TLD discussion, TLD policy, etc.

So, rather than this being a restriction of some previously decided matter, we are really talking about an expansion beyond the 2-letter codes by affirmatively assigning ISO 3166 3 letter codes a new formal role in TLD policy and decision-making.

It also means we would be making a geo-friendly value judgment regarding the relative merits of various possible TLD uses for 3-letter strings that have other meanings and also function as 3-letter codes. So, the jam band community and the jazz jam session community and the jam manufacturers (and home jam makers) all become second-class behind Jamaica, which already has a 2-letter ccTLD and other options (.JAMAICA, for instance). Maybe these are not particularly compelling alternatives, but consider .IOT, with the Internet of Things such a burgeoning area of Internet expansion....

I don’t have a neat suggestion to end this with, but we do need to face the issue of whether, for end users, the potential geo-use is always the most beneficial.

Best regards,

Greg On Thu, Aug 16, 2018 at 12:29 PM Carlton Samuels < carlton.samuels@gmail.com<mailto:carlton.samuels@gmail.com>

...

wrote: Very interesting indeed.

SO ISO 3166-1 defined three (3) sets of country codes; 2-letter, 3-letter, and 3-digit.

ISO 3166-1 is the authoritative baseline for country coded TLDs. So now, the proposition is that we accept that this baseline is restricted purely to the use of the 2-letter codes. Question is, why so?

If I were a ccTLD administrator and since this is so much like the land grab of that time, I would have been forced to paraphrase and grouse as allegedly the Bourbon King of France did at the Treaty of Tordesillas " am I not a Christian and a Prince?" [Disclosure: At one time I was the one with the binding authority at .jm].

My previous attempt to pass on my own view with a tongue-firmly-in-cheek reference to 'jam' seems to have missed the mark. So now, let me be crystal clear. I am for a blanket reservation of all strings pertaining ISO 3166-1 with those already delegated grandfathered. Why, anything else will only encourage speculation like my proposal to go to the Prime Minister of Jamaica and ask his support for delegating the 3-letter code for Jamaica - 'jam' - to me. It is a opportunity that is pregnant with gaming possibilities. But that might be too firm and a bridge to far for all to accept.

So, I can live with my friend Carlos Guiterrez's proposed language; not totally satisfying but close enough to principle for an embrace.

-Carlton ============================== Carlton A Samuels Mobile: 876-818-1799 Strategy, Process, Governance, Assessment & Turnaround =============================

On Tue, Aug 14, 2018 at 9:16 PM Justine Chew < justine.chew@gmail.com<mailto:justine.chew@gmail.com>

...

wrote: These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:

I too believe that WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.

Notwithstanding,

3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standard I don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.

In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.

As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.

As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the " relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.

Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.

Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.

Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.

3-letter strings NOT on ISO 3166-1 standard I also don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings NOT currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. They should not be reserved and should be made available for application, with a pre-defined resolution mechanism to deal with exceptions arising out of changes to the ISO 3166-1 standard over time.

Regards,

Justine Chew -----

On Wed, 15 Aug 2018 at 03:44, Sivasubramanian M < 6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>

...

wrote:

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard@gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>

...

wrote: Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required by Tuesday??.

This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well.

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list

CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list

registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0>

-- Sivasubramanian M Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com<mailto:6.Internet@gmail.com>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list

CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list

CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=APUDV7sSQZbVFFQGBXmroQRq4t0eEK3pl0FhwGQ%2FR7s%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list

registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798768392&sdata=XdXj7ryce%2FWs%2FJhCDPIKtXe6R6WPsCHZ%2BuDn0BBiQSI%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list

CPWG@icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fcpwg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=tefFdq9s2ROK22bsz3B%2BB2eX0ShxHumqtwn6iuPA3No%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list

registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org<mailto:registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg<https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmm.icann.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Fregistration-issues-wg&data=02%7C01%7C%7C71922f12645840e0b6a608d604fb1715%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636701873798924646&sdata=J3gEzfwidT2dFMv5aAXSu3t0iPUbZL4s1zbBLV3tAXc%3D&reserved=0>

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list

CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list

GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

-- Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond, PhD

http://www.gih.com/ocl.html _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

Dear Roberto, I've only just seen your email, so my apologies for the late reply. Yes, I agree with your assessment, I too doubt that many realise that ICANN is represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency. Having said that, I don't believe it it is conducive for ICANN/the Community to "perpetuate" this ignorance (even if others do). IMO this right thing to do is if (somehow) the ISO 3166-1 standard were to be ignored or disregarded, that ICANN should get itself off the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency. But as you well know, as idealists, we have to grapple with many things that just get lost along the way. Regards, Justine ----- On Tue, 21 Aug 2018 at 16:17, Roberto Gaetano <roberto_gaetano@hotmail.com> wrote:

Justine, I have already expressed my opinion, so no need to repeat it, but I would like to point out one little known fact. See below.

On 15.08.2018, at 04:16, Justine Chew <justine.chew@gmail.com> wrote:

... In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.

The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), my employer for 13 years, is also a permanent member of ISO-3166-MA - God only knows why. You would think that the IAEA would have some “moral obligation” to at least use the standard that they participate in maintaining. Wrong. Shortly after joining the IAEA I was reading a document and pointed out that the authors had a code wrong, because they referred to Austria as “AU” while the correct code was “AT”, “AU” being Australia. I also made a joke that I thought was funny quoting a popular saying in Austria that goes: “No kangaroos in Austria". My Director called me and told me to learn the codes in use at the IAEA before speaking and making silly jokes about things I do not know. He was not even aware that ISO-3166 codes existed. As responsible for software development I suggested then to have at least a conversion table between ISO and IAEA codes, but his reply was, verbatim: “Who cares about ISO codes? And who uses them anyway?”. For those who do not know, the IAEA is a specialised UN Agency and a Director has the position of a career diplomat. Later on, when the CS re-delegation crisis came along, I discovered that even the IAEA representative on the ISO-3166-MA was not aware that ccTLDs were using that standard, and therefore saw no problem in reassigning the former Czechoslovakia code to Serbia and Montenegro (Srbija i Crna Gora). Regards, Roberto

Hi group, Alexander Schubert, .berlin and .gay (community). Not voting in any other SO/AC. Participating in the WT5 quite actively. Having read here silently since a while. Promotor of community funded, -operated and -owned public benefit, non-profit, registrant authenticated new gTLD applications for the next round. Let me play devil's advocate: So essentially WT5 should say: "We at WT5 aren't authorized and competent enough to create a policy framework on how to apply for country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes in the current gTLD process; we do suggest that ANOTHER body might create such policies - including the decision whether those are gTLDs or ccTLDs or "somethingelseTLDs"; but introduce already restrictions for that future body!"? I don't think it would be fair to create random pre-conditions for the policy body that will have to deal with the task to create application policies for these names in the future. They deserve to enter into their work without any "ballast". WT5 rejects policy recommendations because these would be subject to the gTLD policy framework - but some want to see these strings being subjected rather (at least partly) to the ccTLD policy framework. Hence we suggest that NOBODY shall apply for such string - until another body makes a sufficient policy. Understandable. BUT: What with Governments which DO SUPPORT such application - and have ZERO PROBLEM with it being subjected to the gTLD framework? Country names and 3166 Alpha-3 codes are not very different from ISO 3166-2 Country subdivision codes; and we do have already registration policies for these in place! In that respect my proposal (which I also made in WT5): if a Government WANTS to support such application as a gTLD - just let them do it; while ICANN strongly recommends to all others to wait for the future policy framework. Here my proposal as addition to the geo-name policies in the new AGB (needs to be brushed up): • country names or ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code based strings are similar to ISO 3166-2 Country subdivision code based strings • there is ALREADY a strict Government support policy in place – for ALL applications regardless of geo-use intent. • ICANN is announcing that a registration policy for these strings will be in developed – but that it will take many more years to be established • That until such policy is established Governments are STRONGLY advised to NOT issue support for applications for country names or ISO 3166-1 Alpha-3 code based strings • That IF a Government supports such application within in the gTLD framework they will have to consult with ICANN (allowing ICANN to yet again explain why such string should actually NOT be applied for right now). It would be requisite that the relevant ccTLD manager and the relevant GAC member have to sign off as well (letters of non-objection) Such proposal would allow the average Government to point to ICANN’s recommendation to NOT allow applications for these strings. But it would also allow those who WANT to operate such string NOW to go for it. For example as: Non-profit, public benefit, community constituent funded applications that do not have to follow the classical “TLD-economics”. Namespaces that serve for eGovernment, destination marketing (tourism board), investment authority marketing, national airline presentation, national sports authority/national Olympic committee presentation. Entities which are used to spend big budgets – and for whom the collective financing of the application and operation costs of a gTLD is a drop in the bucket. To create a trusted namespace – similar to “.gov”. Something they couldn’t do with their national ccTLD. Examples could be “.spain” for a uniform destination marketing of all regions and cities like ibiza.spain, mallorca.spain, granada.spain, costabrava.spain, travel.spain, tourism.spain, seville.spain, malaga.spain, etc. So ICANN strongly recommends to Governments to NOT support these applications – but it allows them to do so if they really, really want! Meanwhile we doctor another 5 to 10 years on how to create “policy” for the names (we do so since well over 10 years by now). Thoughts? Alexander.berlin -----Original Message----- From: GTLD-WG [mailto:gtld-wg-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org] On Behalf Of Sebastien Bachollet Sent: Dienstag, 14. August 2018 22:55 To: Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> Cc: CPWG <cpwg@icann.org>; Javier Rúa-Jovet <javrua@gmail.com> Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes Hello all, I would like to be sure that the proposal of Carlos embedded some of « my » definition and question? "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.” governmental authorities: include local or regional authorities? I suppose that relevant is relevant for both governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities? And can I suggest that the and be replace by or? All the best SeB

Le 11 août 2018 à 20:43, Maureen Hilyard < <mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> a écrit :

Hi everyone

If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that

there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on

Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each

of the key issues that are being discussed.

With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul

Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process

move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a

reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken

place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The

ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.

*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received

by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for

the next

WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion

as well. *

“Dear Annebeth,

As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track

record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter

geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France,

and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs

Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest

case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap-

and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language

suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would

substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which

deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may want to consider

recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation

process to be established (either generic or restricted to the

Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how

specific interested parties, such as relevant public international,

national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"

My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:

“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter

Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers

and public interest/public benefit entities*.”

This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking

recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if

it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a

permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.

Thanks to all,

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez"

_______________________________________________

CPWG mailing list

<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> CPWG@icann.org

<https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg

_______________________________________________

GTLD-WG mailing list

<mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org

<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg

Working Group direct URL:

<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs

_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list <mailto:CPWG@icann.org> CPWG@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ GTLD-WG mailing list <mailto:GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org> GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.org <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg Working Group direct URL: <https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs