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! 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
which relevant Gov Auth.??
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”?
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 http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/unct-framework-charter-27mar14-en.pdf http://ccnso.icann.org/workinggroups/ccwg-ctn-progress-23sep14-en.pdf Recommended reading on the objectives of this ccNSO-GNSO CWgroup https://community.icann.org/pages/viewpage.action?pageId=48346463
Alexander.berlin
Cheers Carlos Raul Gutierrez
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Saturday, April 23, 2016 5:32 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org 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 <mailto:colin@PartridgePartnersPC.com> > Date: Thursday 21 April 2016 at 14:19 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> >, "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " <ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> > Subject: RE: Updated StrawWoman Proposal on 3-character codes
Hello Lars,
Please find attached my comments and edits.
Cordially,
Colin
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Lars Hoffmann Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2016 1:35 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> 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@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom