- Ctn-crosscom - lists.icann.org

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

Attendance MP3 CTN meeting - Monday 21 September 2015
by Terri Agnew Sept. 22, 2015

Sept. 22, 2015

Dear All, Please find the MP3 recording for the Cross-Community Working Group on Use of Country/Territory Names as TLDs meeting held on Monday 21 September 2015 at 20:00 UTC at: http://audio.icann.org/gnso/gnso-ctn-21sep15-en.mp3<http://mailer.samanage.com/wf/click?upn=NrFWbrBstcrPWP369qgbqlXiSKeL20xnUXz…> On page: http://gnso.icann.org/en/group-activities/calendar#sep The recordings and transcriptions of the calls are posted on the GNSO Master Calendar page: http://gnso.icann.org/calendar/ Attendees: ccNSO: Jordi Iparraguirre, ccNSO Council NomCom appointee Mirjana Tasic, .rs Laura Hutchison, .uk Jacqueline Morris, .tt Ron Sherwood .vi Joke Braeken, .eu Annebeth Lange, .no Mary Uduma, .ng Paul Szyndler (co-Chair), .au GNSO Heather Forrest, IPC (Co-Chair) Maxim Alzoba, NTAG Colin O'Brien, IPC At-Large: Cheryl Langdon-Orr GAC: Olga Cavalli, GAC ISO: Jaap Akkerhuis Other: Apologies: Carlos Raul Guttierez, NPOC (co-Chair) Sanna Sahlman, .fi ICANN staff: Marika Konings Karine Perset Bart Boswinkel Nathalie Peregrine Terri Agnew ** Please let me know if your name has been left off the list ** Mailing list archives:http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/ Wiki page:https://community.icann.org/x/X7XhAg Thank you. Kind regards, Terri Agnew **************** Adobe Connect chat transcript for Monday 21 September 2015: Nathalie Peregrine:Welcome to the Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains on Monday 21 September 2015, 20:00 UTC. Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) 2:will log in again - browser duplicated logins Ron Sherwood:Hi, Nathalie Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Thanks, Nathalie! Mirjana Tasic .rs:Hello everyone Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) 2:Olga Cavalli asks for dial out in her e-mail Colin O'Brien:Hi everyone. jaap akkerhuis:Evening all Jordi Iparraguirre:hi everyone Jacqueline Morris:Hello everyone Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:hello Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Hi Olga, have you had your dial out now? Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:Oh yes, I see you are joining now. Good. Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:yes im in the phone bridge as well thanks jaap akkerhuis:I'm happy totae clarifu=ying questions now or by email on the list Marika Konings:Lars is not on the call Marika Konings:but I will check jaap akkerhuis:The SAC chaor got he email Maxim Alzoba (FAITID) 2:RySG recieved it Karine Perset:THe GAC has not yet received it but the GAC Chair has. It should be sent soon. Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:thanks Karine Heather Forrest:Agree with Paul's excellent suggestion re continued communications Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:many thanks Paul Marika Konings:11.30 - 13.00 Marika Konings:at least that is how it is currently on the schedule Annebeth Lange, ccNSO:I agree with Heather and Annebeth on the communication with the GAC. We must sort this out Colin O'Brien:Bye all Mirjana Tasic .rs:Bye Mary Uduma:Goodnight all Jordi Iparraguirre 2:thanks, bye jaap akkerhuis:bye all Paul Szyndler:Thanks! Ron Sherwood:Thanks all, Bye Laura Hutchison:Thanks. Bye Jacqueline Morris:Bye all Olga Cavalli - GAC Argentina:bye thanks Joke Braeken:thank you! bye

1 0

Draft Agenda CTN meeting Monday 21 September 20.00 UTC
by Bart Boswinkel Sept. 21, 2015

Sept. 21, 2015

Dear all, Please find included the draft agenda for our next call Monday 21 September 20.00 UTC. 1. Welcome 2. Review of amended Strawman Paper 3. Report on questionnaires 4. Discussion of 3 letter codes status quo 5. Progress Report for Dublin 6. AOB 7. Closure Also included the updated Strawman option paper. Major changes: * New text on role of the ISO 3166 MA ( as proposed by Jaap) * Area's that need to be completed regarding the 2 letter codes. * Suggestion as discussed previously, to turn definition section into a glossary , that will evolve over time Kind regards, Bart

3 4

Re: [Ctn-crosscom] final review
by Annebeth Lange Sept. 14, 2015

Sept. 14, 2015

Hi Lars, This has been sent now, I presume? Kindly Annebeth Annebeth B. Lange Head of Legal and Policy UNINETT Norid AS C. J. Hambros plass 2 c NO-0164 OSLO annebeth.lange(a)uninett.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no> Mobile: +47 959 11 559 From: Lars Hoffmann <lars.hoffmann(a)icann.org<mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org>> Date: Tuesday 8 September 2015 08:59 To: "ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" <ctn-crosscom(a)icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] final review Dear all, Having implemented the suggested amendments that were submitted on and off list, here is the final version of the letter. Unless additional suggestions are submitted on-list by 23:59 UTC today (local times<http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-UCTN+letter+de…>) I will send this out to the SO/AC SG/C leadership. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars

2 2

final review
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 8, 2015

Sept. 8, 2015

Dear all, Having implemented the suggested amendments that were submitted on and off list, here is the final version of the letter. Unless additional suggestions are submitted on-list by 23:59 UTC today (local times <http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/fixedtime.html?msg=CWG-UCTN+letter+de adline&iso=20150908T2359&p1=%3A> ) I will send this out to the SO/AC SG/C leadership. Many thanks and best wishes, Lars

1 0

Draft Letter and Agenda
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 7, 2015

Sept. 7, 2015

Dear all, Please find attached the proposed draft letter to be sent out to the leadership of all of ICANN¹s Supporting Organisations and Advisory Committees, as well as the GNSO¹s Stakeholder Groups and Constituencies. You can submit any comments to the mailing list or collect them for Monday¹s call. Here is the proposed agenda for what should be a short call on Monday: 1. Welcome 2. Letter to SO/AC and SG/C for input on 3-character codes 3. Agree on methodology and timeline for bringing together historical / current rules and policies on 3-letter codes 4. AOB and next meeting 5. Closure of Meeting Very best wishes, Lars

6 5

URGENT: Tomorrow's CWG-UCTN call cancelled
by Lars Hoffmann Sept. 6, 2015

Sept. 6, 2015

Dear all, I have been asked my the co-chairs to cancel tomorrow's call due to it being US Labour Day and the fact that our agenda is rather light. I have received a number of proposed edits to the outreach letter that was circulated last week. I will send out an updated version in the coming days to see if any final amendments are proposed before sending it out to the SO/AC and SG/C chairs. Staff will also make some methodological proposals with regard to three letter codes to kick-start the discussion on the list. Please note that our next meeting will be on Monday 21 September 20:00 UTC. An agenda will be circulated in due course. Best wishes Lars

2 1