Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee
Tere Timo, Thank you for engaging in our session remotely and for your direct assessment of our Forum session. Yes, the forum brought up a wide range of issues....that was the plan all along. For the most part, I agree with your frank and honest assessment of where we sit at the moment, and the clearly-divided lines between stakeholders. Bringing these lines closer together is where we need to engage the art of diplomacy. I invite other WG members to post their views. I expect the co-chairs will meet soon after our jet lag wears off and will contact the group with our Helsinki post-mortem. Regards Paul
On 1 Jul 2016, at 6:03 PM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Hi all!
ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb.
First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank!
The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground.
Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen.
Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time.
My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach.
What do you think?
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear working group, obviously there are different interests at play. At a MINIUM we should be able to create a solution that will live up to the following litmus test: * If a country wants either their territory name (or a short form of it) or it’s ISO 3166 Alpha 3 code element it should be able to get it. o Governments want to have control over that process; and per the current AG they do have control as these strings would require a letter of non-objection by the relevant Government authority. We might highlight that for the GAC – seems not everyone there understands the built in protections of the 2012 AG. o ccTLD operators fear: * competition (which is understandable) * “confusion” of the Internet User if * ccTLD’s can be interchangeable two letter and three letter codes * codes are similar like .fr and .fra or .de and .deu o A solution should be established that mitigates the risk – but also enables those ccTLD operators and Governments which STILL seek such TLD to apply for it. As Timo said already: If we do not find a flexible solution but instead demand “100% non-restriction” the ban will not be lifted and I wonder how we would explain to certain Governments in 5 year future that they can’t go for .turkey, .greece or .spain for tourism marketing or .est for eGovernment or whatever solutions based on territory gTLD’s will be brought up by 2020! Protection is important – but to DENY a nation THEIR OWN NAME on Top Level just because we were too inflexible seems unreasonable. Please also be reminded that TLD’s are NOT always applied for because they might “sell good” or meet a certain “demand”: There is all kind of reasons to base certain services on the top level of the DNS – and in many cases Governments or administrations within Governments HAPPILY finance the exercise to apply and maintain that TLD: even if there is ZERO revenue from operations. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Paul Szyndler Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 7:42 PM To: Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Tere Timo, Thank you for engaging in our session remotely and for your direct assessment of our Forum session. Yes, the forum brought up a wide range of issues....that was the plan all along. For the most part, I agree with your frank and honest assessment of where we sit at the moment, and the clearly-divided lines between stakeholders. Bringing these lines closer together is where we need to engage the art of diplomacy. I invite other WG members to post their views. I expect the co-chairs will meet soon after our jet lag wears off and will contact the group with our Helsinki post-mortem. Regards Paul On 1 Jul 2016, at 6:03 PM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> > wrote: Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Timo, a few notes to this: 1. You state that “The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.” That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded! 2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: “… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round). 3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee>
Dear Alexander, If I understand your statement below right, do you mean that if the protection in the first round in the AGB 2.2.1.4.1 is lifted in the next round, the c & t names will be moved down to the geo names in 2.2.1.4.2, som that they would need “support or non-objection” from the governments? That actually makes sense. If capitols and cities used as cities need this, c & t names in all forms are higher in the “hierarchy”, and it would make no sense that capitols and cities would need this in the next round and c & t names would not. They would still be gTLDs, just like .paris, .berlin etc. Is this the right interpretation of what you mean to say below? Kind regards, Annebeth 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: Friday 1 July 2016 at 22:02 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Timo, a few notes to this: 1. You state that “The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.” That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded! 2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: “… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round). 3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee>
Dear Annabeth, YES – and we have to relay that information to the GAC – as quite clearly they aren’t really informed about it (or rather a sizeable amount of GAC reps isn’t). They have to be moved to 2.2.1.4.2. I think we should get rid of the permutations for 3166 Alpha 3 codes in 2.2.1.4.1 vi - that is hilarious. Who would confuse .gar with .arg? Thanks, Alexander From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:46 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Dear Alexander, If I understand your statement below right, do you mean that if the protection in the first round in the AGB 2.2.1.4.1 is lifted in the next round, the c & t names will be moved down to the geo names in 2.2.1.4.2, som that they would need “support or non-objection” from the governments? That actually makes sense. If capitols and cities used as cities need this, c & t names in all forms are higher in the “hierarchy”, and it would make no sense that capitols and cities would need this in the next round and c & t names would not. They would still be gTLDs, just like .paris, .berlin etc. Is this the right interpretation of what you mean to say below? Kind regards, Annebeth 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: Friday 1 July 2016 at 22:02 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> " Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Timo, a few notes to this: 1. You state that “The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.” That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded! 2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: “… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round). 3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee>
It could be interesting to hear other WG-members think of this approach. Best regards Annebeth Annebeth B Lange UNINETT Norid AS Den 2. jul. 2016 kl. 20.44 skrev Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>>: Dear Annabeth, YES – and we have to relay that information to the GAC – as quite clearly they aren’t really informed about it (or rather a sizeable amount of GAC reps isn’t). They have to be moved to 2.2.1.4.2. I think we should get rid of the permutations for 3166 Alpha 3 codes in 2.2.1.4.1 vi - that is hilarious. Who would confuse .gar with .arg? Thanks, Alexander From: Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no] Sent: Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:46 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Dear Alexander, If I understand your statement below right, do you mean that if the protection in the first round in the AGB 2.2.1.4.1 is lifted in the next round, the c & t names will be moved down to the geo names in 2.2.1.4.2, som that they would need “support or non-objection” from the governments? That actually makes sense. If capitols and cities used as cities need this, c & t names in all forms are higher in the “hierarchy”, and it would make no sense that capitols and cities would need this in the next round and c & t names would not. They would still be gTLDs, just like .paris, .berlin etc. Is this the right interpretation of what you mean to say below? Kind regards, Annebeth 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: Friday 1 July 2016 at 22:02 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Timo, a few notes to this: 1. You state that “The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.” That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded! 2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: “… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round). 3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee> _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
You know my thoughts on this - if government decides that a 3 letter ISO code stands for that country the contract for managing that TLD should be made between the TLD manager and the government not ICANN. There are different reasons why a government would like to keep control over the TLD avoiding competitions and confusion being the most considerable ones. It is important to note that ccTLD operators are mostly not-for-profit organisations and gTLDs are profit oriented. gTLD regulations kind of revolve over profit oriented business model and trying to standardize how the registry side is run - what kind of data is collected, in what details, how saved and worst of all ICANNs super database with the details of all the gTLD registrants is just crazy. No room for data protection, privacy nor innovation. We as a ccTLD serve other purposes and strive for different goals - with our e-governance and e-identity we aim for simplicity for the registrant, one-time data entry, electronic signatures, security and privacy - staff that is very hard or even impossible to do under current ICANN contract. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee On Sun, Jul 3, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no> wrote:
It could be interesting to hear other WG-members think of this approach.
Best regards Annebeth
Annebeth B Lange UNINETT Norid AS
Den 2. jul. 2016 kl. 20.44 skrev Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin>:
Dear Annabeth,
YES – and we have to relay that information to the GAC – as quite clearly they aren’t really informed about it (or rather a sizeable amount of GAC reps isn’t).
They have to be moved to 2.2.1.4.2. I think we should get rid of the permutations for 3166 Alpha 3 codes in 2.2.1.4.1 vi - that is hilarious. Who would confuse .gar with .arg?
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Annebeth Lange [mailto:annebeth.lange@uninett.no <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>] *Sent:* Saturday, July 02, 2016 8:46 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
Dear Alexander,
If I understand your statement below right, do you mean that if the protection in the first round in the AGB 2.2.1.4.1 is lifted in the next round, the c & t names will be moved down to the geo names in 2.2.1.4.2, som that they would need “support or non-objection” from the governments? That actually makes sense. If capitols and cities used as cities need this, c & t names in all forms are higher in the “hierarchy”, and it would make no sense that capitols and cities would need this in the next round and c & t names would not. They would still be gTLDs, just like .paris, .berlin etc.
Is this the right interpretation of what you mean to say below?
Kind regards,
Annebeth
*From: *<ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert *Reply-To: *"alexander@schubert.berlin" *Date: *Friday 1 July 2016 at 22:02 *To: *"ctn-crosscom@icann.org" *Subject: *Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
Timo,
a few notes to this:
1. You state that *“The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.”* That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded!
2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: *“… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! *So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round).
3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now.
If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [ mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
Hi all!
ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb.
First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank!
The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground.
Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen.
Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time.
My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel + 372 727 1004
www.internet.ee
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Alexander, Just to reply on some of your notes We seem to live in a bit different information fields, because I keep hearing statements from gNSO group that ISO 3166 3 means nothing in context of TLDs or even that alpha 2 does not make sense for TLDs. For me it looks like gunning for no restrictions. Of course that might just be to create an illusion of compromise while going for the current AGB version as it is. But as you self pointed out - that wording was agreed only for the last round with intent to look things over before next. So that brings me back to my point of view - alpha 3 codes in essence are country codes identically to to alpha 2 codes and should be handled (delegated) in same way as long as the government of that country is in control of it. I do not get your point on confusion - who gets confused and why? For the internet user there is no difference what so ever if the site is under ccTLD or gTLD. Registrants need to present different kind of data already regardless of the TLD type - different requirement on nameservers, contact parameters and details etc - registrars usually handle this quite well, so do not see the added confusion here as well. cc in ccTLD stands for country code not the number of chars in the domain name. 2 and 3 letter ISO codes are representing a country and are identical in that manner. There are already two separate tracks how gTLD and ccTLD are delgated so the question is which track needs updating. The geo names regulation in the last round ensured that local authority had power to decide who can manage the TLD but nothing else - TLD manager has a contract with ICANN and basically can do what ever with it as long as it is in conjunction with ICANN's regulations. I might be missing something here, so please correct me if I am wrong. So yes I will continue to lobby that 2 and 3 letter country codes should be delegated the same way, but there should be a process for the country to decide on the level of control they want to have - full control as ccTLD being on one side and almost no control as gTLD on the other, and something to motivate the governments to make the decision. I am very much open for discussion over the ccTLD approach - but I have not seen any GAC members holding their heads because of this and why would they hate to have control over things. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Timo,
a few notes to this:
1. You state that *“The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.”* That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded!
2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: *“… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”!*So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round).
3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now.
If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
Hi all!
ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb.
First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank!
The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground.
Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen.
Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time.
My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel + 372 727 1004
www.internet.ee
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi group, before this turns into a dialog between Timo and me: Any suggestions or opinions on the points brought forward by Timo or me? Does anyone here believe that GAC would galvanize around the suggestion to elevate a small subset of 3 letter based TLDs to the official status of ccTLDs – while 99% remain open to become gTLDs (there are about 200 blocked 3 letter codes in ISO 3166 Alpha 3 – but there are over 17,000 three letter combinations in the alphabet). Is there any support in this group for the notion of allocating ISO 3166 Alpha 3 based three letter TLDs in the same way as ccTLDs? That is: * Without the submission of an application to ICANN * Without application fees * Outside of the main track in a wholly isolated silo * Without ICANN transaction fees * Without being bound to ICANN policy – instead only controlled (or not controlled) by the relevant Government? What if Macau claims .mac – then starts a bidder war between Apple and Estee Lauder (cosmetics brand MAC) – and eventually hands over the TLD to the high bidder: No ICANN vetted restrictions or policy applying whatsoever? Keep in mind the examples of .co, .tv, .me, .md, .cc, .am and .fm as well. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 2:21 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Alexander, Just to reply on some of your notes We seem to live in a bit different information fields, because I keep hearing statements from gNSO group that ISO 3166 3 means nothing in context of TLDs or even that alpha 2 does not make sense for TLDs. For me it looks like gunning for no restrictions. Of course that might just be to create an illusion of compromise while going for the current AGB version as it is. But as you self pointed out - that wording was agreed only for the last round with intent to look things over before next. So that brings me back to my point of view - alpha 3 codes in essence are country codes identically to to alpha 2 codes and should be handled (delegated) in same way as long as the government of that country is in control of it. I do not get your point on confusion - who gets confused and why? For the internet user there is no difference what so ever if the site is under ccTLD or gTLD. Registrants need to present different kind of data already regardless of the TLD type - different requirement on nameservers, contact parameters and details etc - registrars usually handle this quite well, so do not see the added confusion here as well. cc in ccTLD stands for country code not the number of chars in the domain name. 2 and 3 letter ISO codes are representing a country and are identical in that manner. There are already two separate tracks how gTLD and ccTLD are delgated so the question is which track needs updating. The geo names regulation in the last round ensured that local authority had power to decide who can manage the TLD but nothing else - TLD manager has a contract with ICANN and basically can do what ever with it as long as it is in conjunction with ICANN's regulations. I might be missing something here, so please correct me if I am wrong. So yes I will continue to lobby that 2 and 3 letter country codes should be delegated the same way, but there should be a process for the country to decide on the level of control they want to have - full control as ccTLD being on one side and almost no control as gTLD on the other, and something to motivate the governments to make the decision. I am very much open for discussion over the ccTLD approach - but I have not seen any GAC members holding their heads because of this and why would they hate to have control over things. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Timo, a few notes to this: 1. You state that “The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.” That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded! 2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: “… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round). 3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 <tel:%2B%20372%20727%201004> www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Alexander and group, It looks like it already is a dialogue - which is really unfortunate. A domain name becomes ccTLD when it is delegated as such, while on the reserved list or just not registered it is just a string. So nothing need elevating here. It is just a matter of approach - how certain names are delegated - under which ruleset. If a country/government wants to use a 3 letter (or country name for future arguments sake) to achieve its own goals why shouldn't it have a control over how it is done? So in that case the name becomes ccTLD. If the government does not see value in the domain name and signs it off to some company it becomes a gTLD. How or why is modifying ccTLD delegation regulation different than adding exceptions to gTLD AGB for geographical names. It is a question of how to motivate governments to decide if they want to use the 3 letter ISO country code or give it up for general and generic use. ccTLD track is just separate track of doing things and it is already there and it works. So what is the problem here - is it about money? Are you afraid that Macau will make easy money of their code and just because of them you deny control to everyone. Or are the few out of more than 250 ccTLDs that operate similarly to gTLDs reason to think that ccTLD is no good? A lot of rhetorical questions. But the main question remains - does this group have any energy left for discussions and trying to reach some proposal? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi group,
before this turns into a dialog between Timo and me:
Any suggestions or opinions on the points brought forward by Timo or me? Does anyone here believe that GAC would galvanize around the suggestion to elevate a small subset of 3 letter based TLDs to the official status of ccTLDs – while 99% remain open to become gTLDs (there are about 200 blocked 3 letter codes in ISO 3166 Alpha 3 – but there are over 17,000 three letter combinations in the alphabet). Is there any support in this group for the notion of allocating ISO 3166 Alpha 3 based three letter TLDs in the same way as ccTLDs? That is:
· Without the submission of an application to ICANN
· Without application fees
· Outside of the main track in a wholly isolated silo
· Without ICANN transaction fees
· Without being bound to ICANN policy – instead only controlled (or not controlled) by the relevant Government?
What if Macau claims .mac – then starts a bidder war between Apple and Estee Lauder (cosmetics brand MAC) – and eventually hands over the TLD to the high bidder: No ICANN vetted restrictions or policy applying whatsoever? Keep in mind the examples of .co, .tv, .me, .md, .cc, .am and .fm as well.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] *Sent:* Monday, July 04, 2016 2:21 PM *To:* alexander@schubert.berlin *Cc:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
Alexander,
Just to reply on some of your notes
We seem to live in a bit different information fields, because I keep hearing statements from gNSO group that ISO 3166 3 means nothing in context of TLDs or even that alpha 2 does not make sense for TLDs. For me it looks like gunning for no restrictions. Of course that might just be to create an illusion of compromise while going for the current AGB version as it is. But as you self pointed out - that wording was agreed only for the last round with intent to look things over before next. So that brings me back to my point of view - alpha 3 codes in essence are country codes identically to to alpha 2 codes and should be handled (delegated) in same way as long as the government of that country is in control of it.
I do not get your point on confusion - who gets confused and why? For the internet user there is no difference what so ever if the site is under ccTLD or gTLD. Registrants need to present different kind of data already regardless of the TLD type - different requirement on nameservers, contact parameters and details etc - registrars usually handle this quite well, so do not see the added confusion here as well. cc in ccTLD stands for country code not the number of chars in the domain name. 2 and 3 letter ISO codes are representing a country and are identical in that manner. There are already two separate tracks how gTLD and ccTLD are delgated so the question is which track needs updating.
The geo names regulation in the last round ensured that local authority had power to decide who can manage the TLD but nothing else - TLD manager has a contract with ICANN and basically can do what ever with it as long as it is in conjunction with ICANN's regulations. I might be missing something here, so please correct me if I am wrong.
So yes I will continue to lobby that 2 and 3 letter country codes should be delegated the same way, but there should be a process for the country to decide on the level of control they want to have - full control as ccTLD being on one side and almost no control as gTLD on the other, and something to motivate the governments to make the decision. I am very much open for discussion over the ccTLD approach - but I have not seen any GAC members holding their heads because of this and why would they hate to have control over things.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel + 372 727 1004
www.internet.ee
On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Timo,
a few notes to this:
1. You state that *“The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.”* That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded!
2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: *“… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”!*So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round).
3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now.
If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] what next?!
Hi all!
ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb.
First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank!
The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground.
Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen.
Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time.
My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach.
What do you think?
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia
Tel + 372 727 1004
www.internet.ee
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear working group, So we seemingly have two separate issues here regarding country & territory names (and alpha 3 codes representing those countries): 1. Shall those be eligible for application in the next round; aka: Shall the “ban” be lifted? If so: should these be added to the list of strings that would need Government approval (otherwise there is no way to get this by the GAC: They already said so in Helsinki). 2. In case we make these strings eligible: Would we suggest to GAC that each Government should have the discretion to decide by themselves whether it would be delegated as ccTLD or gTLD? I asked a number of GAC members in Helsinki – seemingly they want a UNIFORM approach. Dito we should inquire at IPC, ccNSO, etc. My suggestion yet again: * We allow 3166 Alpha 3 elements and territory & country names subject (like all geo based gTLDs) to the approval of the relevant Government authority. * If a Government has certain visions how the space has to be run (e.g. with innovation, non-profit or what not) they simply approve only according applications. I hear from some GAC members that they additionally wish a letter of non-objection from the relevant GAC member as in some countries the relevant Government authority has limited competence. * As seemingly a lot of ccTLD operators do not welcome competition or fear consumer confusion: Shall we require the agreement (letter of non-objection) of the respective ccTLD operator as well? I think it would make sense. * As someone who co-founded a city TLD applicant for the 1st round I think that a strong public benefit applicant shouldn’t have any problems to get the letters of non-objection from their GAC rep, the relevant Government authority and the relevant ccTLD operator. It’s some work – but better a high hurdle than no path to success at all. And if the Government agrees already then the GAC member will as well (as he is subject to instructions of the Government obviously) – and to try to create a country affiliated gTLD (.spain, .est) AGAINST the declared rejection of the ccTLD operator is not wise anyways. In fact in many cases (like .est) it is even the ccTLD operator himself who initiates the application. As Timo and me are monopolizing the discussion here (because we both are in the process of setting up applicants for ISO 3166 Alpha 3 strings) a question: Does this exchange abide to the scope and intended realm of the working group – or are we spamming this forum? We are about 5 years away from the application deadline (or so I hear as opinion from everyone) – that would be then about a decade away from the initiation of the last round. A long time in which presumably others (which do not know about the CWG) might come up with desires to country TLD’s. I see especially tourism related applications in English such as .spain, .greece, .thailand or .turkey! These wouldn’t have to “earn money” but might be operated like “.gov”: Paid for by the Government (or the tourism authority) to promote the nations tourism-wise and investment-wise. Those would be the nation equivalent to brand gTLD’s! “If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” Henry Ford Thanks, Alexander From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee] Sent: Dienstag, 5. Juli 2016 13:35 To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Alexander and group, It looks like it already is a dialogue - which is really unfortunate. A domain name becomes ccTLD when it is delegated as such, while on the reserved list or just not registered it is just a string. So nothing need elevating here. It is just a matter of approach - how certain names are delegated - under which ruleset. If a country/government wants to use a 3 letter (or country name for future arguments sake) to achieve its own goals why shouldn't it have a control over how it is done? So in that case the name becomes ccTLD. If the government does not see value in the domain name and signs it off to some company it becomes a gTLD. How or why is modifying ccTLD delegation regulation different than adding exceptions to gTLD AGB for geographical names. It is a question of how to motivate governments to decide if they want to use the 3 letter ISO country code or give it up for general and generic use. ccTLD track is just separate track of doing things and it is already there and it works. So what is the problem here - is it about money? Are you afraid that Macau will make easy money of their code and just because of them you deny control to everyone. Or are the few out of more than 250 ccTLDs that operate similarly to gTLDs reason to think that ccTLD is no good? A lot of rhetorical questions. But the main question remains - does this group have any energy left for discussions and trying to reach some proposal? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Mon, Jul 4, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi group, before this turns into a dialog between Timo and me: Any suggestions or opinions on the points brought forward by Timo or me? Does anyone here believe that GAC would galvanize around the suggestion to elevate a small subset of 3 letter based TLDs to the official status of ccTLDs – while 99% remain open to become gTLDs (there are about 200 blocked 3 letter codes in ISO 3166 Alpha 3 – but there are over 17,000 three letter combinations in the alphabet). Is there any support in this group for the notion of allocating ISO 3166 Alpha 3 based three letter TLDs in the same way as ccTLDs? That is: * Without the submission of an application to ICANN * Without application fees * Outside of the main track in a wholly isolated silo * Without ICANN transaction fees * Without being bound to ICANN policy – instead only controlled (or not controlled) by the relevant Government? What if Macau claims .mac – then starts a bidder war between Apple and Estee Lauder (cosmetics brand MAC) – and eventually hands over the TLD to the high bidder: No ICANN vetted restrictions or policy applying whatsoever? Keep in mind the examples of .co, .tv, .me, .md, .cc, .am and .fm as well. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> ] Sent: Monday, July 04, 2016 2:21 PM To: alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Alexander, Just to reply on some of your notes We seem to live in a bit different information fields, because I keep hearing statements from gNSO group that ISO 3166 3 means nothing in context of TLDs or even that alpha 2 does not make sense for TLDs. For me it looks like gunning for no restrictions. Of course that might just be to create an illusion of compromise while going for the current AGB version as it is. But as you self pointed out - that wording was agreed only for the last round with intent to look things over before next. So that brings me back to my point of view - alpha 3 codes in essence are country codes identically to to alpha 2 codes and should be handled (delegated) in same way as long as the government of that country is in control of it. I do not get your point on confusion - who gets confused and why? For the internet user there is no difference what so ever if the site is under ccTLD or gTLD. Registrants need to present different kind of data already regardless of the TLD type - different requirement on nameservers, contact parameters and details etc - registrars usually handle this quite well, so do not see the added confusion here as well. cc in ccTLD stands for country code not the number of chars in the domain name. 2 and 3 letter ISO codes are representing a country and are identical in that manner. There are already two separate tracks how gTLD and ccTLD are delgated so the question is which track needs updating. The geo names regulation in the last round ensured that local authority had power to decide who can manage the TLD but nothing else - TLD manager has a contract with ICANN and basically can do what ever with it as long as it is in conjunction with ICANN's regulations. I might be missing something here, so please correct me if I am wrong. So yes I will continue to lobby that 2 and 3 letter country codes should be delegated the same way, but there should be a process for the country to decide on the level of control they want to have - full control as ccTLD being on one side and almost no control as gTLD on the other, and something to motivate the governments to make the decision. I am very much open for discussion over the ccTLD approach - but I have not seen any GAC members holding their heads because of this and why would they hate to have control over things. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 <tel:%2B%20372%20727%201004> www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Fri, Jul 1, 2016 at 11:02 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Timo, a few notes to this: 1. You state that “The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD.” That is factually not true. If the ban on ISO 3166 Alpha 3 and Territory names would be lifted then these would OBVIOUSLY still be “geo names”. And independently of that ban the AG already provides for the requirement of a letter of non-objection (see 2.2.1.4.2 “Required Documents” page 68 of the 04 June 2012 AG). So if anyone applied for a ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 code element they needed a letter of non-objection; so the Government could impose any and all restrictions they wish or withhold that letter! So the notion of “non-restricted gTLD’s” is unfounded! 2. The current guidebook clearly states in 2.2.1.4.1 (page 67) that the ISO 3166 restriction counts only for THAT round: “… country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in THIS application round”! So very clearly the intent was stated to CHANGE this in the next round (which is the upcoming round). 3. You repeatedly try to lobby for your specific cause; that is to declare 3166 Alpha 3 codes to be somehow so similar to Alpha 2 codes that they are to be perceived as ccTLD’s. This creates havoc – the GAC members went NUT’s over your suggestion which was read aloud in the CWG meeting. Norway for example was close to an heart attack. There are ccTLD’s – they have TWO letters. To completely destroy that system and have SOME 3 letter TLD’s being ccTLD’s as well – and others (like .ibm, .gay or .sex) NOT ccTLD’s drives people just NUTS: The general public had no clue to know what is ccTLD and what gTLD. Most Alpha 3 codes are gibberish like “deu” for Germany – if someone saw a domain.deu no one would ever think in Germany it was a German ccTLD. I spoke to GAC members and they said “over our dead bodies”: This is a complete road block. If you continue to lobby for this solution the outcome is pre-determined: GAC and ccTLD operators will kill the attempt to lift the ban – and all stays like it is now. If we want to move forward and lift that ban then we have to find a MUTUAL solution – and if that forces someone to get a letter from your Government and sign a contract with ICANN: Does that really kill anyone? There are DOZENS of European based gTLD’s like .berlin, .london or .paris – they all do fine. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> ] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Friday, July 01, 2016 6:02 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] what next?! Hi all! ICANN is behind us and I thought I should share some feelings I have about the situation we are at with the topics this WG was convened for. Firstly I must apologize for not being in Helsinki, but I kept my eye on things over the amazing interweb. First of all does anyone else have a feeling that this WG is becoming redundant or already is? No-one seems to expect anything from it any more. Shouldn’t we do something about it? Looking at the facts – gNSO wants the 3 letter codes without restrictions for business, GAC wants the codes protected and leave the decision about the codes as souvern right of the respective country. CcNSO sadly cannot decide. So ccwg seems to be the correct way of trying to solve this by bringing the parties around a table – why do we let gNSO yap about closing this wg and all other initiatives and letting them decide what happens to the country codes and names. Sorry gNSO members for being frank! The codes and names are closed for everybody at the moment. If we cannot find a compromise this is how it stays. As a ccTLD representative I must say that this is much better outcome than no-restrictions-gTLD. But I do not want that, I think there are more countries and organisations out there feeling the same, gNSO does not want that. It seems there is potential here to find a middle ground. Compromise requires steps back from the dream from all sides. ISO 3-letter codes as gTLDs without any restrictions will not happen. ISO 3-letter codes as pure ccTLDs will probably not happen either. Lets try to find something that might happen. Another thing – having these TLD delegation rounds is stupid. So the goal should be to find a process that just works and anyone interested could apply for a TLD at any time. My proposal. 3-letters like 2-letters and country names are marking a country. ISO list is obviously not perfect, but this is what we have, the list is respected and referenced by the UN and ICANN among others so looks like a legit (widely accepted) source for country codes. Each country must have rights to decide what happens to the signs, identifiers, markers etc that represent that country. As country codes, these should also be treated as such. If the respective government explicitly gives up their privileges for the 3 letter code that code becomes gTLD and is delegated like any other. Why would a country give up its control over a TLD? Money - lets have the same rates for having the 3 letter ccTLD as there are for new gTLD. Every country/ccTLD operator/other authorized party must sign the contract with ICANN for the delegation or give up the rights for it. As long as a government has the control over a domain it should be treated as ccTLD and be regulated by the respective country. So it is this process - https://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation - that needs to be improved. The take-it-or-leave-it approach. What do you think? Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation Paldiski mnt 80, 10617 Tallinn, Estonia Tel + 372 727 1004 <tel:%2B%20372%20727%201004> www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> 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 No virus found in this message. Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com> Version: 2016.0.7597 / Virus Database: 4613/12562 - Release Date: 07/05/16
participants (4)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Paul Szyndler -
Timo Võhmar