Hi everyone,
Thank you for the feedback on Option 3. Here are my responses:
1. Having multiple applications for the same string (for instance AA = Aerolíneas Argentinas & American Airlines) should not be classified as a risk. There is already a procedure in place when two entities with equal rights want a TLD string. Specifically the auction procedures as established by section 4.3 of the applicant guidebook.
2. The comment regarding a risk of consumer confusion if a 2-char TLD is used by a multinational brand but it is also an acronym/brand of a local one. (ex. BA = British Airlines but also Banco Atlántico) seems tenuous. If a user is looking for Banco Atlantico and enters home.ba and is taken to a homepage for British Airways they are not confused.
3. Right now there are over 300 Two letter combinations which have not been assigned by ISO-3166-1. See, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-1_alpha-2 I really can’t foresee more than 300 new countries being created in the future. Further the number of closed brand TLDs would likely be limited. Looking at the availability on ISO-3166-1 the only company names that I see are HP, LG and VW.
Colin
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Annebeth Lange
Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 3:03 AM
To: Jordi Iparraguirre; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Next meeting
Hi all,
Thanks for all the comments. I have added another argument under option 3 to hightlight the risks opening up for 2-letters for gTLDs. I understand that these brand owners would like to have their brand as domain name, but in my view this will ruin the system with the distinction between ccTLDs and gTLDs and discriminate possible new countries in the future.
Kind regards,
Annebeth
Annebeth B. Lange
Head of Legal and Policy
UNINETT Norid AS
C. J. Hambros plass 2 c
NO-0164 OSLO
Mobile: +47 959 11 559
From: "Jordi Iparraguirre .cat" <jordi@iparraguirre.cat>
Date: Tuesday 2 June 2015 09:44
To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org" <ctn-crosscom@icann.org>
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] Next meeting
Hi and apologies for not being able to join the last conference.
Option 3 is an interesting one. I've added a couple of risks to it as I
think there is a risk of consumer confusion and brand overlapping.
Attached previous (Grigori+Colin) doc + my edits.
Thanks
jordi
El 01/06/15 a les 21:04, Colin O'Brien ha escrit:
Hello all,
I have added an additional option to Grigori’s document. I feel there
should be an option that allows the owners of 2 character trademarks to
operate closed brand registries as long as there is no conflict with ISO
3166-1.
Cordially,
Colin
[mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Lars Hoffmann
*Sent:* Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:36 AM
*To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org
*Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] Next meeting
Dear all,
Apologies for the late email, but due to a number of scheduling issues
we will cancel next week’s call. Instead we will resume our calls on
Monday 8 June at 20:00 UTC (local times
A detailed agenda will follow.
This also means, that there will be more time for participants to send
back their views on the 2-letter code options. I have attached all
documents received so far. In time for the next meeting I will send out
a collated document.
Please note, if you send a document please feel free to post directly to
the list, I will collate it from there.
Many thanks and 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
______________________________________________________________________
This email has been scanned by the Symantec Email Security.cloud service.
For more information please visit http://www.symanteccloud.com
______________________________________________________________________