Dear all, please find below responses form the .hk registry operator. Very best. Lars From: Jonathan Shea <jonathan.shea@hkirc.hk> Date: Thursday, 5 November 2015 21:25 To: Lars HOFFMANN <lars.hoffmann@icann.org> Subject: RE: [ccTLDcommunity] Questionnaire CCWG Use of names of country and Territories: 3-letter codes Hi Lars, Below please find our replies to the questions raised. 1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? <JS> Yes, all country and territory 3-character TLDs should be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs. Otherwise, confusion and wrong perception will be caused to Internet users as to whether the 3-character TLD or the 2-character ccTLD is the true official representation of the country/territory. Also, the basic difference between ccTLD and gTLD is that a ccTLD represents country/territory and gTLDs are for generic terms with no geographic connotation. 2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? <JS> Apart from the 3-character codes on the ISO 3166-1 list, there may be codes or strings which are 3-character or longer which are commonly accepted/used for specific countries or territories but not on the ISO list. These should be ineligible for use as gTLDs too. Otherwise gross misunderstanding and confusion will be caused on which ones of these are the ones truly representing the country/territory. 3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? <JS> This is ok. But all ccTLDs should be consulted rather than only those which are thought to be relevant. 4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? <JS> This is not sufficient. See answers to Q1, 2, 3 above. 5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? <JS> All IDNs which are official names or commonly known names of countries or territories, irrespective of their length (number of IDN characters) should be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs. 6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? <JS> This is not sufficient. See answer to Q6 above. 7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains? <JS> Nil. Regards, Jonathan Shea HKIRC (.hk ccTLD) From: cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org [mailto:cctldcommunity-bounces@cctld-managers.org] On Behalf Of Bart Boswinkel Sent: Wednesday, 4 November 2015 5:31 PM To: ccnso-members@icann.org; cctldcommunity@cctld-managers.org Cc: Lars Hoffmann; ccnso-council@icann.org Subject: [ccTLDcommunity] Questionnaire CCWG Use of names of country and Territories: 3-letter codes Dear all, Please find included a request for input from the cross-community working group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). Please respond to lars.hoffmann@icann.org (also included in the cc). Closing date is 30 November 2015. The questionnaire is a follow-up from the presentation Annebeth Lange (.no) and Paul Szyndler (.au) gave at the ccNSO meeting in Dublin. Their presentation can be found here: https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ccnso-members/presentati on-ctn-20oct15-en.pdf <https://meetings.icann.org/en/dublin54/schedule/tue-ccnso-members/presentat ion-ctn-20oct15-en.pdf> . Kind regards, Bart Boswinkel -------------------- Dear all, As you may be aware, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils have chartered a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In addition, the Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country and territory names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of the WG is strictly limited to: · Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions (ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other geographical indicators, such as regions, are excluded; · The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is excluded. The CWG-UTCN has divided its work into three work stream: 2-letter codes, 3-letter codes, and full names of countries and territories; currently the Group is starting its discussion on 3-letter codes and it is on this issue specifically that your feedback is being sought at this time. Please note that the community will be given ample opportunity to comment and provide feedback on all other issues in due course. To help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character codes, you will find below a number of questions; it would be very helpful to the Group if you could provide feedback on some or all questions raised. Please do not hesitate to supply any additional comments you may have on three-letter codes, as long as they are within the scope of work of the CWG (see above). Please send your comments to Lars Hoffmann (lars.hoffmann@icann.org <mailto:lars.hoffmann@icann.org> ), who is part of the CWG¹s staff support team, by Monday 30 November 2015. If you cannot submit your input by that date, but you would like to contribute, please let us know when we can expect to receive your contribution so we can plan accordingly. Your input will be very much appreciated. With best regards, Heather Forrest, GNSO (Co-Chair) Carlos Gutiérrez, GNSO (Co-Chair) Annebeth Lange, ccNSO (Co-Chair) Paul Szyndler, ccNSO (Co-Chair) Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of country and territory names as top-level domains 1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 2. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for current ccTLD allocation? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 3. In future, should three-character strings be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 4. In future, should there be unrestricted use of three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 5. In future, should all IDN three-character strings be reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 6. In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy? 7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains?