July 2016 - Ctn-crosscom - lists.icann.org

Call for RSVPs: GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | 26 July 2016 at 13:00 UTC
by Nathalie Peregrine July 12, 2016

July 12, 2016

GNSO Working Group Communication Tools Classroom | July 26 2016 | 13:00 UTC Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU> by 25 July 2016. Are you a new GNSO Working Group Member? Do you have questions you never asked about Adobe Connect or other participation tools that are used to facilitate Working Group deliberations? The upcoming Communication Tools Classroom is the place to look for answers to these and any other questions you may have in relation to Working Group tools. Please join the SO/AC Support team on July 26, 2016 at 13:00 UTC for the Communication Tools Classroom. In an informal setting, new Working Group members will be familiarized with the communication tools they will be using when taking part in GNSO Working Groups. Agenda: 1. Welcome 2. Introduction to the SO/AC Support team & Policy Support Staff 3. Where to find relevant information: a. GNSO Master Calendar b. Individual Working Group Wiki pages. 4. Working Group Mailing lists: a. Difference between statuses (Observer/ Member) 5. Working Group Members a. Statements of Interests b. Email invitations c. Calendar invitations 6. Adobe Connect room 7. Questions This session will be recorded and the recordings will be made available on the GNSO Calendar<http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar>. We look forward to your participation! Please RSVP via this form<http://goo.gl/forms/mR4HD9XNZU> by 25 July 2016.

1 0

what next?!
by Timo Võhmar July 5, 2016

July 5, 2016

Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee

4 11

ISO alpha-2 & alpha-3 codes
by Jaap Akkerhuis July 4, 2016

July 4, 2016

All, A word of caution. In the discussion about ISO codes people mention alpha-2 and alpha-3 codes. Note that this only means the form of the code element, it doesn't says a lot about the type of the code. For alpha-2 codes there are the (1) Official Assigned and (2) Reserved codes. There are different types of reservation possible but the most important to note is that "While a code is reserved it will not be used in the standard to represent a country". In general, only official assigned codes are used for ccTLDs (although there are exceptions). The Glossary on the ISO site <http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes_glossary.html> gives more details about the definitions of the types. And of course the standard itself. It is possible to find out which the various reserved alpha-2 codes are via the Online Browsing Platform (OBP) ISO <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#home> but the list of reserved alpha-3 codes is as far as I know not publicly available. Regards, jaap

2 1