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@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@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.