Timo, Sorry, but please study RFC 1591 written in 1994 by Jon Postel (think of him as “God” for the DNS community – which would be a clear understatement) himself: rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt It clearly specifies: “There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs). These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT), and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166.” This order has been never once disrupted – all that happened is that more gTLDs were ADDED: Their character remained unchanged: Longer than 2 letters! That 2-letter TLDs are ccTLDs is not just a “long standing principle” – it is THE ONLY principle since the inception of the DNS in 1984. Postel thought it was “unlikely” that more TLD’s would be added – but “unlikely” is not “can never be”; and evidently it happened. But the strict separation of ccTLDs and gTLDs remained intact since the inception of the DNS. Thanks, Alexander From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:05 PM To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no> Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin; ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment Hi all, Also agree with Alexander's comments. In addition I would also like to point out that in number of places ie page 22, page 23 etc there is a claim "...is not consistent with or supported by the simple and long-standing principle that 2-character codes are ccTLDs and 3+-character codes are gTLDs." There is no such long-lasting principle. There was a principle that 2 letters were country codes, five 3 letter generics and one infrastructure TLD (.arpa). That was extended in 2000 with 7 new TLDs. Principle here is closed list of gTLDs and as many 2 letter country codes as there are countries. But that went out of the window with the first round of new gTLDs. Typing + after number 3, stating that whole string space starting from 3 letters was designed for use as gTLD and saying that this has always been how internet was made is ... lets just say wrong. I suggest to use more intelligent arguments when describing different opinions of this group. The whole 5.2.6 paragraph is very painful read clearly written in free for all spirit as I see only how all arguments hinting an option for anything else than dropping the protection and giving unlimited access to iso 3 letter country codes are criticized. Was this really so one sided discussion in this group? I was not here at that time, so I really do not know. But after reading this, it is amazing to find out that there is no recommendation to give. I see clear recommendation in 5.2.6 and conflicting conclusion in 5.3. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no <mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no> > wrote: Hi Alexander and all, I agree with your input, Alexander. Kind regards Annebeth Lange From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> > on behalf of Alexander Schubert Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> " Date: Wednesday 25 January 2017 at 23:32 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment Hi, Page 21 the three preferences how alpha-3 codes could be handled: 1) support for opening all ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to eligiblity as gTLDs (eligibility is misspelled - and the sentence makes no sense! Probably meant as: "...... to be eligible as gTLDs"?) I do not see any more the option that has already garnered a LOT of support: Treating the 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes like ALL other designators in the ISO 3166 (e.g. “BAR” or “TATA”): In the existing AG for ALL 3166 listed elements there is a requirement that the relevant Government authority has to sign a letter of non-objection! So I suggest we either add to 1) that OF COURSE the already established AG requirement for a letter of non-objection would be triggered for alpha-3 codes as well! Or we have a 4th preference. Indeed: Annex D provides for FOUR possibilities discussed by the SOs/ACs. On page 22 it says: “Supporting to open all 3-character codes as gTLDs: • There is no sovereign or other ownership right of governments in country or territory names, including ISO 3166-1 codes, so there is no legal basis for government veto power on allocation of these codes as gTLDs” Not true! The AG has a provision whereby ALL ISO 3166 elements need a letter of non-objection of the Government! See “.bar” or “.tata”! Obviously if already a tiny mini municipality like the TATA region (15,000 people, all desert, no industry, but listed in ISO 3166) requires such a letter then OF COURSE a 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 code requires it as well! Thanks, Alexander Schubert -----Original Message----- From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:26 PM To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl <mailto:jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> > Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment Dear Jaap, Thank you for your review and feedback. Staff will review the formatting and content of the frames. Kind regards, Emily On 25/01/17 04:48, "Jaap Akkerhuis" < <mailto:jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote: Emily Barabas writes: > Please find attached a revised version of the CWG-UCTN Interim Paper. > This version incorporates language to reflect a lack of consensus on > recommendation 3. > > > Kindly provide any final revisions or comments on the Interim Paper by > Friday 3 February. Dear Emily, I did a quick scan and noticed that something went with the two "Frames" about the ISO 3166. They now look as a single one to me. But apart from that, the first one seemed to have a garbled sentences here and there. Note the start of the second section, to quote: The ISO body responsible for the standard 3166 is the Technical Committee 46, systems etc. and as non-current, dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical interest (ISO/TC 46/WG2). And there are more of these. I will have a nore close read later, but these things really needs to be clean up. Regards, jaap _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom