Your thoughts are interesting, Alexander. Please join the WG more actively :-)

And I meant all of you .berlin entrepreneurs! You have all been very persistent and done good work.

Kind regards
Annebeth


From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin" <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Date: Tuesday 26 April 2016 14:36
To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

Hi Annabeth,

 

You wrote: 

 

“Annebeth: Alexander, do you mean that both the relevant government/public authority and the ccTLD operator should agree?”

 

Well: If the alternative is to deny the constituents of a territory (the ccTLD operator, a community applicant, the Government, etc) to apply for and use in any way they fancy a ISO 3166 code then why not introducing as “safeguard” the approval of the ccTLD operator? The country authorities obviously need to sign off anyways. Some independent ccTLD operators (like the largest one: DENIC eG with 16 Million domains – wholly independent from the German Government) might fear that by creating a Government operated “alternative” the independency is undermined.

 

And thanks for the .berlin compliments. Kudos to Dirk more than to me btw!


Thanks,

 

Alexander.berlin

 

 

From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no]
Sent: Tuesday, April 26, 2016 2:25 PM
To: Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez G. <crg@isoc-cr.org>; Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

 

Dear Carlos and Alexander,

 

My comments are included inline as well. I will also send a separate mail on some other issues.

 

 

Kind regards

Annebeth

 

 

Annebeth B. Lange

Special Adviser International Policy

UNINETT Norid AS

P.O.Box 6979 St. Olavs plass

NO-0130 Oslo

 

Mobile: +47 959 11 559

 

 

 

From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Carlos Raul Gutierrez <crg@isoc-cr.org>
Date: Saturday 23 April 2016 20:40
To: Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin>
Cc: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

 

Dear Alexander

 

my comments inline and welcome to participate actively in the group!!!!

 

Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez

+506 8837 7176

Skype: carlos.raulg

Current UTC offset: -6.00 (Costa Rica)

On 23 Apr 2016, at 12:06, Alexander Schubert wrote:

 

Dear All,

 

 

 

I have been following this group for quite some while but remained

obviously silent. I have been engaged in geo-gTLD’s since November

2004; when Dirk and me started “.berlin”. I have also founded an

applicant that went for a three letter new gTLD (the community

applicant for .gay).

 

I am planning to create a true community multi stakeholder applicant

for a three letter gTLD based on an ISO 3166 III code in the 2nd

round;

 

In that case I strongly encourage you to support a definitive

pdp-process on the use of country and territory names based on ISO that

may or may not support your idea but make it mandatory for any

subsequent round. So far this is only a CWG exercise, and the draft text

shows that for the time being it is not possible to preclude any of the

ideas submitted so far to the Team about using 3-letter codes or not,

because we are far from any consensus (other that developing a true

policy process from my personal perspective).

 

 

and write here in that capacity.  Reading your thoughts I can say that

that string:

 

*         WILL be marketed as alternative to the corresponding ccTLD!

 

Annebeth: This is in contradiction with the “Starting point for Possible Policy Framework” in the Straw Man Paper, and therefore shows clearly your point above, Carlos, that we are far from consensus.

 

And there is absolutely ZERO reason to deny

 

Who would deny?

 

such use, if:

 

o   The respective ccTLD operator is the RSP for the new string and

 

the previous ccNSO working group could have come to that conclusion, but

to the best of my knowledge they didn´t.

 

o   Hence agrees into creating its own “competition”

 

The Swiss authorities did it to some degree by not allowing .ch to run

.swiss, but that was their own innovation without the need of any new

policy and .swiss is longer than 3 letters……..sometimes the DNS is

also about innovation.

 

o   The relevant Government authorities agree in such usage as well

 

Annebeth: Underline my comment 36 in the Straw Man that it will be impossible to deny a government to market “their” 3-letter code, for example in competition with the existing 2-letter code.

 

which relevant Gov Auth.??

 

Annebeth: The text from the AGB 2.2.1.4.2 about registration of cities etc. uses the expression “the relevant government or public authorities”.  It must be up to each country to establish what that is.

 

 

 

I think the litmus test is: What if a nation WANTS another TLD?

another TLD or another ccTLD?

 

 

What if UK said they want .eng Domains (no, I am not building a .eng)

– and they WANT them in direct competition with .uk?

not sure if eng is a 3 letter code under ISO………

 

Who are we to deny them their wish?

 

So far, only the applicants guidebook of the last round

 

Why not simply assigning the same principles as for geo-TLD’s: If

the relevant Government authorities agree – then obviously they want

it. Why would we DENY them that string? Same with the ccTLD

competition: If the ccTLD operator is in agreement (e.g. because they

are the RSP for the new string or for whatever other reason) why not

allowing them to market it as “competition”?

 

Annebeth: Alexander, do you mean that both the relevant government/public authority and the ccTLD operator should agree?

 

 

nice idea for the ccNSO

 

 

 

Would a double opt-in by Government AND the ccTLD operator ease the

concerns?

 

possible, if the local jurisdiction make such a deal possible. But

again, outside the realm of ICANN

Does the GAC even REALIZE that the “perceived protection” amounts

to restriction in the end?

 

GAC has its own WG on Geographic names. You could ask them

 

Sincerely yours,

 

 

Recommended reading on the previous work by the ccNSO

 

 

Recommended reading on the objectives of this ccNSO-GNSO CWgroup

 

 

 

 

Alexander.berlin

 

Cheers

Carlos Raul Gutierrez

 

Kindly

Annebeth

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann

Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:32 PM

Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] FW: Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character

codes

 

 

 

Der all,

 

Here is Colin’s document for those who did not receive it.

 

Best. Lars

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

From: Colin O'Brien <colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com

Date: Thursday 21 April 2016 at 14:19

To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org

Subject: RE: Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes

 

 

 

Hello Lars,

 

 

 

Please find attached my comments and edits.

 

 

 

Cordially,

 

 

 

Colin

 

 

 

[mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann

Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:35 PM

Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character

codes

 

 

 

Dear all,

 

 

 

Please find attached the updated version of the StrawWoman on

30-chacter codes. The document contains redlined comments from

Annebeth, Panos, Ørnulf, and Jaap.

 

 

 

If you have any comments please use the attached documents and add

them via track-changes and submit back to the list or forward just to

me. I will collate all comments and redistribute a master document

prior to our next call.

 

Speaking of … due to scheduling issues, the co-Chairs have decided

to move the next call to Monday 2 May 2016, time TBD.

 

 

 

Best wishes,

 

Lars

 

 

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud

service.

For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

______________________________________________________________________

 

 

______________________________________________________________________

This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud

service.

For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com

______________________________________________________________________

 

_______________________________________________

Ctn-crosscom mailing list

_______________________________________________

Ctn-crosscom mailing list