October 2015 - Ctn-crosscom

Feedback on Use of Three-Letter Names at the Top Level
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. Oct. 19, 2015

Oct. 19, 2015

Dear colleagues: We previously provided written feedback to the Working Group as shown in the attached email; however, in reviewing the summary document circulated in today’s face to face meeting, we did not see our feedback reflected. Therefore, we wanted to re-circulate our feedback, with a few additional updates, for the benefit of the Working Group. Below please find our updated input with respect to the options presented regarding the use of three-letter names (including three-letter country codes) at the top level. Option Feedback All three-character strings reserved for use as ccTLD only, ineligible for use as gTLD. This would prevent any future applications for three-character combinations as gTLDs. We oppose this option. Three-character strings eligible for use us gTLDs if not in conflict with ISO 3166 list. This would prevent any applications for three-character combinations as gTLDs that match any alpha-3 codes, reflecting the current status quo. Alpha-3 codes have never been used as active TLDs by any country or territory, even though they have been assigned. There is no legal basis for government ownership, control, or priority over these names. We oppose this option. Three-character strings eligible for use as gTLD if not in conflict with ISO 3166 list unless accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authorities. This would prevent any applications for three-character combinations as gTLDs that match any alpha-3 codes, without the relevant government’s consent. There is no legal basis for requiring such consent, and no legal basis for government ownership, control, or priority over these names. Alpha-3 codes have never been used as active TLDs by any country or territory, even though they have been assigned. We oppose this option. Unrestricted use of three-character strings if not in conflict with any applicable string similarity rules. This would permit any gTLD applications so long as the string were not confusingly similar to another previously-delegated or applied-for string. This is the most logical, historically aligned, and legally-sound option, as it is consistent with internationally-recognized principles of free speech as well as intellectual property and consumer protection doctrines, including those contained in the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and modern treaties on intellectual property rights including TRIPS, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, national sovereignty has no bearing on the use of country and territory names beyond the ability of a sovereign state to determine its own internationally-recognized name(s). See, e.g., Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 644. Thus, international law, while not necessarily needing to serve as the basis for ICANN policy-making, should be considered, and in this case, multiple sources of international law support open use of three-letter names as gTLDs except in cases of confusing similarity, while international legal support for continued reservation of these names is lacking. Furthermore, this position aligns with the historical separation as between two-letter names, which have been used by countries and territories to represent their respective TLD resources, and three letter names, which have only ever been used to represent generic TLDs. Despite the fact that the ISO has undertaken to assign three-letter names to each country and territory, these names have never been used as TLDs. End users of the Internet know three-letter generic names like .COM, .NET, .ORG, and now .XYZ, with no likelihood of confusion vis-à-vis country or territory names (even through, for example COM is the ISO 3-letter name for COMOROS, and NET could be, but is not, the ISO 3-letter name for NETHERLANDS). Thus, historical practice further supports the use of three-letter names as gTLDs. Future three-character strings reserved for use as IDN ccTLD only, ineligible for use as gTLD. This would prevent any future applications for three-character IDNs as gTLDs. We oppose this option. Unrestricted use of three-character IDN strings if not in conflict with an existing TLD or any applicable string similarity rules. This would permit any IDN gTLD applications so long as the string were not confusingly similar to another previously-delegated or applied-for string. This is the most logical, historically aligned, and legally-sound option. For the same reasons stated above, we support this option. We hope this input is valuable to the Working Group. We look forward to continuing to engage in this work going forward. Best regards, Brian and Griffin Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt(a)mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284 direct dial 202.830.0330 fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345 direct dial Griffin M. Barnett Staff Attorney Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 gbarnett(a)mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 202.263.3289 phone 202.830.0333 fax __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

1 0

Feedback on Use of Three-Letter Names at the Top Level
by Winterfeldt, Brian J. Oct. 19, 2015

Oct. 19, 2015

Dear colleagues: We previously provided written feedback to the Working Group as shown in the attached email; however, in reviewing the summary document circulated in today’s face to face meeting, we did not see our feedback reflected. Therefore, we wanted to re-circulate our feedback, with a few additional updates, for the benefit of the Working Group. Below please find our updated input with respect to the options presented regarding the use of three-letter names (including three-letter country codes) at the top level. Option Feedback All three-character strings reserved for use as ccTLD only, ineligible for use as gTLD. This would prevent any future applications for three-character combinations as gTLDs. We oppose this option. Three-character strings eligible for use us gTLDs if not in conflict with ISO 3166 list. This would prevent any applications for three-character combinations as gTLDs that match any alpha-3 codes, reflecting the current status quo. Alpha-3 codes have never been used as active TLDs by any country or territory, even though they have been assigned. There is no legal basis for government ownership, control, or priority over these names. We oppose this option. Three-character strings eligible for use as gTLD if not in conflict with ISO 3166 list unless accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authorities. This would prevent any applications for three-character combinations as gTLDs that match any alpha-3 codes, without the relevant government’s consent. There is no legal basis for requiring such consent, and no legal basis for government ownership, control, or priority over these names. Alpha-3 codes have never been used as active TLDs by any country or territory, even though they have been assigned. We oppose this option. Unrestricted use of three-character strings if not in conflict with any applicable string similarity rules. This would permit any gTLD applications so long as the string were not confusingly similar to another previously-delegated or applied-for string. This is the most logical, historically aligned, and legally-sound option, as it is consistent with internationally-recognized principles of free speech as well as intellectual property and consumer protection doctrines, including those contained in the 1883 Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property and modern treaties on intellectual property rights including TRIPS, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. In addition, national sovereignty has no bearing on the use of country and territory names beyond the ability of a sovereign state to determine its own internationally-recognized name(s). See, e.g., Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia v. Greece, I.C.J. Reports 2011, p. 644. Thus, international law, while not necessarily needing to serve as the basis for ICANN policy-making, should be considered, and in this case, multiple sources of international law support open use of three-letter names as gTLDs except in cases of confusing similarity, while international legal support for continued reservation of these names is lacking. Furthermore, this position aligns with the historical separation as between two-letter names, which have been used by countries and territories to represent their respective TLD resources, and three letter names, which have only ever been used to represent generic TLDs. Despite the fact that the ISO has undertaken to assign three-letter names to each country and territory, these names have never been used as TLDs. End users of the Internet know three-letter generic names like .COM, .NET, .ORG, and now .XYZ, with no likelihood of confusion vis-à-vis country or territory names (even through, for example COM is the ISO 3-letter name for COMOROS, and NET could be, but is not, the ISO 3-letter name for NETHERLANDS). Thus, historical practice further supports the use of three-letter names as gTLDs. Future three-character strings reserved for use as IDN ccTLD only, ineligible for use as gTLD. This would prevent any future applications for three-character IDNs as gTLDs. We oppose this option. Unrestricted use of three-character IDN strings if not in conflict with an existing TLD or any applicable string similarity rules. This would permit any IDN gTLD applications so long as the string were not confusingly similar to another previously-delegated or applied-for string. This is the most logical, historically aligned, and legally-sound option. For the same reasons stated above, we support this option. We hope this input is valuable to the Working Group. We look forward to continuing to engage in this work going forward. Best regards, Brian and Griffin Brian J. Winterfeldt Co-Head of Global Brand Management and Internet Practice Mayer Brown LLP bwinterfeldt(a)mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006-1101 202.263.3284 direct dial 202.830.0330 fax 1221 Avenue of the Americas New York, New York 10020-1001 212.506.2345 direct dial Griffin M. Barnett Staff Attorney Mayer Brown LLP 1999 K Street, NW Washington, DC 20006 gbarnett(a)mayerbrown.com<mailto:bwinterfeldt@mayerbrown.com> 202.263.3289 phone 202.830.0333 fax __________________________________________________________________________ This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify the system manager. If you are not the named addressee you should not disseminate, distribute or copy this e-mail.

1 0

CWG-UCTN Meeting
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Dear all, Below you find the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Best wishes, Lars CWG-UCTN Meeting, Monday 19 October 2015, 11:30-13:00, Wicklow MR3 1. Welcome and Tour de table 2. Review of Achievements and next steps * Presentation of request for input including extension of deadline * Outreach efforts 3. Initial discussion of comments on 3-letter codes submitted so far 4. Any other business 5. Next meeting

1 0

CWG-UCTN Meeting
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 18, 2015

Oct. 18, 2015

Dear all, Below you find the proposed agenda for tomorrow's meeting. Best wishes, Lars CWG-UCTN Meeting, Monday 19 October 2015, 11:30-13:00, Wicklow MR3 1. Welcome and Tour de table 2. Review of Achievements and next steps * Presentation of request for input including extension of deadline * Outreach efforts 3. Initial discussion of comments on 3-letter codes submitted so far 4. Any other business 5. Next meeting

1 0

FW: WG: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - please provide feedback
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 16, 2015

Oct. 16, 2015

Dear all, Please find below an email from Karine Perset sent on behalf of Thomas Schneider, GAC Chair, regarding the CWG-UCTN¹s request for input that was sent to the GAC last month. Best wishes, Lars From: Karine Perset <karine.perset(a)icann.org> Date: Tuesday, 6 October 2015 00:35 To: Glen de Saint Géry <Glen(a)icann.org>, Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: "Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch" <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch>, Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>, Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au>, Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org> Subject: Re: WG: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - please provide feedback On behalf of Thomas Schneider, GAC Chair Dear Co-Chairs of the CWG-UCTN, Thank you for your email of 9 September seeking feedback from the GAC and other SO/ACs on the use of three-character codes as top-level domains in future rounds of new gTLDs. The subject of the use of three-character country and territory codes at the top-level is of significant interest to the GAC, but the GAC will not be able to provide input to the CWG-UCTN by the requested date of Friday 9 October. The GAC has scheduled a discussion of this topic at its meeting at ICANN54 in Dublin and expects to be able to provide a response to your letter shortly thereafter. With best regards, Karine Von: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. September 2015 15:08 An: Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>; Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au>; Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Betreff: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - please provide feedback Dear SO/AC Chair, As you may be aware, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils have chartered a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In addition, the Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country and territory names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of the WG is strictly limited to: · Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions (ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other geographical indicators, such as regions, are excluded; · The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is excluded. The CWG-UTCN has divided its work into three work stream: 2-letter codes, 3-letter codes, and full names of countries and territories; currently the Group is starting its discussion on 3-letter codes and it is on this issue specifically that your feedback is being sought at this time. Please note that the community will be given ample opportunity to comment and provide feedback on all other issues in due course. To help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character codes, you will find below a number of questions; it would be very helpful to the Group if you could provide feedback on some or all questions raised. Please do not hesitate to supply any additional comments you may have on three-letter codes, as long as they are within the scope of work of the CWG (see above). Please send your comments to Lars Hoffmann (lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org) who is part of the CWG¹s staff support team, by Friday 9 October 2015. If you cannot submit your input by that date, but you would like to contribute, please let us know when we can expect to receive your contribution so we can plan accordingly. Your input will be very much appreciated. With best regards, Heather Forrest, GNSO (Co-Chair) Carlos Gutiérrez, GNSO (Co-Chair) Annebeth Lange, ccNSO (Co-Chair) Paul Szyndler, ccNSO (Co-Chair) Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of country and territory names as top-level domains 1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains?

2 1

FW: RySG comments on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 15, 2015

Oct. 15, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the comments submitted by the Registry Stakeholder Group. Best wishes, Lars From: Paul Diaz <pdiaz(a)pir.org> Date: Wednesday, 14 October 2015 21:14 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: ICANN Registry Constituency <regycon(a)googlegroups.com> Subject: RySG comments on Use of Country & Territory Names as TLDs Hi Lars, Please find attached comments from the Registries Stakeholder Group (RySG) on the ³Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains.² In the interest of time, the RySG did not conduct a formal vote on these comments. They were circulated and debated on our mailing list, however, and no member expressed opposition to the submission of these comments. We are available to respond to any questions. Respectfully, Paul Diaz RySG Chair (elect)

1 0

FW: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - Afghanistan feedback
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 12, 2015

Oct. 12, 2015

Dear CWG members - Please find below a message from Afghanistan on three-character strings in response to our request. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars From: Aimal Marjan <aimal.marjan(a)mcit.gov.af> Date: Saturday, 10 October 2015 08:41 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: Zmarialai Wafa <zmarialai.wafa(a)mcit.gov.af> Subject: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - Afghanistan feedback Hello, Following is the feedback from Afghanistan. Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of country and territory names as top-level domains? ? 1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? It only creates confusion between users for ccTLDs and gTLDs. ccTLD is driven by local law where the gTLD is driven by thr global law, this itself is a big confusion for users. If in the future there were any plan then it would be feasible to have 3 letters strings only for use in ccTLDs. A good example in our case is AFG which is the abbreviation for Afghanistan but there are various companies like American Financial Group in USA, Australian Financial Group in Australia, Al Futtaim Group in UAE, Advent Film Group that use the same abbreviation for their brand names, this would create serious issues between the government and private sector. Advantage is that there will be more sells for gTLDs and some brands might get their 3 letters TLD. Disadvantage is that it creates confusion for users 2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?? No, the use of 3 characters strings as gTLDs must receive no objection letter from the governments and other public authorities first. Advantage is: they will have open hand to register any string for their brads no matter it is in conflict with the ccTLD. Disadvantage is that governments and other public authorities will have no knowledge of the strings being registered for their businesses. 3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?? As long as it is not in conflict with existing alpha 3 codes from ISO 3166-1 list, they are good to proceed. The only advantage is that there will be consultation and no objection letter needed from the government that gives the government and other public authority to closely review the string Disadvantage would be the same (Confusion for users) 4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?? No, the use of 3 characters strings as gTLDs must receive no objection letter from the governments and other public authorities first. Advantage is: they will have open hand to register any string for their brads no matter it is in conflict with the ccTLD. Disadvantage is that governments and other public authorities will have no knowledge of the strings being registered for their businesses. 5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?? It should be reserved only for ccTLDs. Advantage is Multilingual presence of the ccTLD Disadvantage would a little bit of confusion for users, though it creates more business opportunities for companies to have 3 characters strings for their brands. 6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?? As long as it is not in conflict with existing alpha 3 codes from ISO 3166-1 list, they are good to proceed. The only advantage is that there will be more business opportunities for brands to register their brand names, but it should go through no objection process from the governments and other authorities. Disadvantage would be the same (Confusion for users) 7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains? No comments, thanks. Regards, GAC Afghanistan _____________________________________________________________________ Muhammad Aimal Marjan Deputy Minister IT Ministry of Communications and IT || Islamic Republic of Afghanistan ( c ) +93-700-283338 || ( o ) +93-20-2103883 || ( w ) www.mcit.gov.af

1 0

FW: VS: [GAC] Use of 3-letter country codes as top-level domains - please provide feedback
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear all, Please fine below preliminary feedback from Ørnulf Storm. Best wishes, Lars From: "Storm, Ørnulf" <ornulf.storm(a)Nkom.no> Date: Friday, 9 October 2015 15:43 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Cc: "Lindeberg, Elise" <elise.lindeberg(a)Nkom.no>, Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org>, Karine Perset <karine.perset(a)icann.org> Subject: VS: [GAC] Use of 3-letter country codes as top-level domains - please provide feedback Hi, Please find our preliminary brief answers to the questions: 1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? The question is not asked correctly. We don¹t think 3-letter country codes should be used at all (unless for some instances of IDN ccTLDs and gTLDs. See answers below on Q5). They should not be reserved for ccTLDs neither should they be used for gTLDs. The reason for this is the 3-letter country code represent the same country or territory as the 2-letter country code. Therefore, using these 3-letter codes at allcould create end user confusion. Using the 3-letter country codes for ccTLDs could be a confusion for the end user since the 3-letter country codes has so strong association to the country and could therefore by the end user be mixed up with the existing ccTLD. 2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? No. Certain 3-letter codes have already been used for gTLDs and there are actually some instances of them being on the 3-letter country code list. To use more 3-letter codes for new gTLDs will increase the risk for end user confusion, so our suggestion is to not use any new three letter code at all for new neither ccTLDs nor gTLDs. 3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? No, the 3-letter codes should not be used at all. Again, end user confusion. 4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? No. As stated before. We do not think it is a good idea to use more 3-letter codes for any new top level domains. 5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? No. Existing 3-letter gTLDs should be eligible for an exact match of an equivalent IDN 3-letter code. Also new IDN ccTLD should also be eligible for a IDN 3-letter code. 6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? No. Same as previous answer. The should be very limited use of IDN 3-letter codesas suggest in the answer to Q5. 7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains? In our view there are so many other available strings that could be used for a new top level domain and you should therefore not pick those that will most certainly cause end user confusion and also are likely to create conflicts between national law and ICANN policy Regards, Ørnulf Storm Head of Section Section for Electronic Communication and Internet Networks Department Norwegian Communications Authority Switchboard: + 47 22 82 46 00 Direct: + 47 22 82 46 22 Mobile: + 47 970 72696 www.nkom.no <http://www.nkom.no/> Von: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] Gesendet: Mittwoch, 9. September 2015 15:08 An: Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> Cc: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>; Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au>; Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> Betreff: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - please provide feedback Dear SO/AC Chair, As you may be aware, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils have chartered a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In addition, the Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country and territory names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of the WG is strictly limited to: · Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions (ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other geographical indicators, such as regions, are excluded; · The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is excluded. The CWG-UTCN has divided its work into three work stream: 2-letter codes, 3-letter codes, and full names of countries and territories; currently the Group is starting its discussion on 3-letter codes and it is on this issue specifically that your feedback is being sought at this time. Please note that the community will be given ample opportunity to comment and provide feedback on all other issues in due course. To help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character codes, you will find below a number of questions; it would be very helpful to the Group if you could provide feedback on some or all questions raised. Please do not hesitate to supply any additional comments you may have on three-letter codes, as long as they are within the scope of work of the CWG (see above). Please send your comments to Lars Hoffmann (lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org) who is part of the CWG¹s staff support team, by Friday 9 October 2015. If you cannot submit your input by that date, but you would like to contribute, please let us know when we can expect to receive your contribution so we can plan accordingly. Your input will be very much appreciated. With best regards, Heather Forrest, GNSO (Co-Chair) Carlos Gutiérrez, GNSO (Co-Chair) Annebeth Lange, ccNSO (Co-Chair) Paul Szyndler, ccNSO (Co-Chair) Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of country and territory names as top-level domains 1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains?

1 0

Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [GAC] Use of 3-letter country codes as top-level domains - please provide feedback
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 9, 2015

Oct. 9, 2015

Dear Nina, Of course. Thank you for your note. Best wishes, Lars Lars Hoffmann | Policy Manager lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org | tel: +32 491 507680 |skype: lars.hoffmann.icann ICANN | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 6 Rond Point Schuman | 1040 Brussels | Belgium On 09/10/2015 14:45, "Pääkkönen Nina" <Nina.Paakkonen(a)mintc.fi> wrote: >Dear Mr. Lars Hoffmann, > >Finland would like to contribute but unfortunately we are not able to >submit our answers in due time. So would it be possible that I'll send >the Finnish input on Monday 19th of October? > >With best regards, > >Nina Pääkkönen > >Coordinator of International Affairs >Communications Policy Department >Ministry of Transport and Communications, Finland >Tel. +358 295 342217 >twitter @lvmfi >facebook.com/lvmfi >lvm.fi > > > Von: Glen de Saint Géry [mailto:Glen@icann.org] >An: Schneider Thomas BAKOM <Thomas.Schneider(a)bakom.admin.ch> >Cc: Olof Nordling <olof.nordling(a)icann.org>; Tom Dale <tom(a)acig.com.au>; >Julia Charvolen <julia.charvolen(a)icann.org>; Lars Hoffmann ><lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org> >Betreff: Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains - please >provide feedback > >Dear SO/AC Chair, > > As you may be aware, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils have chartered a Cross >Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as >top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review >the current status of representations of country and territory names, as >they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In >addition, the Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the >feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions >that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country >and territory names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of >the WG is strictly limited to: > >· Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their >subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code >International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions >(ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other geographical >indicators, such as regions, are excluded; > >· The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The >use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is excluded. > > The CWG-UTCN has divided its work into three work stream: 2-letter >codes, 3-letter codes, and full names of countries and territories; >currently the Group is starting its discussion on 3-letter codes and it >is on this issue specifically that your feedback is being sought at this >time. Please note that the community will be given ample opportunity to >comment and provide feedback on all other issues in due course. > > To help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character codes, you >will find below a number of questions; it would be very helpful to the >Group if you could provide feedback on some or all questions raised. >Please do not hesitate to supply any additional comments you may have on >three-letter codes, as long as they are within the scope of work of the >CWG (see above). > > Please send your comments to Lars Hoffmann (lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org) >who is part of the CWG's staff support team, by Friday 9 October 2015. If >you cannot submit your input by that date, but you would like to >contribute, please let us know when we can expect to receive your >contribution so we can plan accordingly. > > Your input will be very much appreciated. > > With best regards, > > Heather Forrest, GNSO (Co-Chair) > >Carlos Gutiérrez, GNSO (Co-Chair) > >Annebeth Lange, ccNSO (Co-Chair) > >Paul Szyndler, ccNSO (Co-Chair) > > > > >Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of >country and territory names as top-level domains > > > >1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be >reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be >the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? > >2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be >eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the >existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character >version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD >allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? > >3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as >gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the >ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or >non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What >would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? > >4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character >strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string >similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a >policy? > >5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved >exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the >advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? > >6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN >three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or >any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or >disadvantage of such a policy? > >7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in >its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains? > > >

1 0

Monday's Call cancelled
by Lars Hoffmann Oct. 2, 2015

Oct. 2, 2015

Dear all, I have been asked by the Co-Chairs to cancel Monday calls due to the lack of any new substantive issues that have arisen. As a reminder, we will meet face-to-face in Dublin on Monday 19 October at 11:30am local time. Details for our Dublin agenda will be circulated in due course. Best wishes, Lars

1 0