ISO 3-letter country codes
Hello everybody, I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision. It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate. For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step. We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round. The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case. After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well. In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward. All questions and comments are very welcome. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee
Hello Timo, I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element? So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that: 1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator) 2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User! You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here: * Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu <http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either. * So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being: o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory). o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie <http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie <http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code. So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous. There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us? Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hello everybody, I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision. It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate. For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step. We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round. The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case. After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well. In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward. All questions and comments are very welcome. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation <http://www.internet.ee> www.internet.ee
Hi Alexander, Thank you for your comments! I think that making 3-letter country codes available should be done outside of the next gTLD round and on the same conditions at 2-letter country codes are now ( http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation). This gives wider time range for countries to make their plans and makes it more realistic to achive the abitious plans of realeasing the rest on 3rd gTLD round. Setting some price tag on the application that could but from our - small country and even smaller registry - point of view is hopefully not set as high as the gTLD applications, would help in avoiding delegations without no good reason. I do not share your view on the seriousness of the problems you pointed out. "Countries" lacking interest on delegating 3-letter codes is good for gTLD community and puts some substance into the proposal. Whether "the countries" should have some saying on who gets the delegation of the country code after the release for general gTLD registration is a subject for debate. I do not see this absolutely necessary. But this can happen only after "the countries" have had reasonable time to decide if they want to user their priority. I also think that it is not necessary or even smart for ICANN to attempt to control the reasoning why anyone wants the delegation. Who is to decide that Macao is too small to secure .mac for any other reason than denying the option for the Apple. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hello Timo,
I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element?
So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that:
1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator)
2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User!
You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here:
· Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either.
· So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being:
o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory).
o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie or www.moonlanding.lie – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code.
So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous.
There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us?
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hello everybody,
I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision.
It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate.
For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step.
We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round.
The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case.
After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well.
In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward.
All questions and comments are very welcome.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Timo, We run into a classic policy problematic: The realm of what makes “sense” vs the realm of real life demands. Look at ANY issue: Abortion, Immigration, Surveillance: It all boils down to two fractions that each have their arguments and perceived needs to protect this or that group (e.g. mother vs unborn life, etc). I think it is not our job to create the most sense making suggestion. Because in all likelihood the GAC will just not like – and consequently trash it. If we force a Chinese territory to choose between becoming an applicant for .mac or see its arch enemy USA snacking it up to be used with one of their tech giants: China will explode. You just can’t do that to a nation. It must be done the other way around: Without the express permission of China (Macao in this case) no one will be able to get the delegation of .mac. Basta. And I personally know a number of GAC members who would go to any length to defend that stance. The ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes are seen as useless for most nations. They are either so small they just do not need another ccTLD-like gTLD – or the code has no resemblance at all! Like “.deu” – I assure you that 95% of average Germans presented with “deu” would not be able to guess what that should represent. And we are talking about a 82 Million nation with the largest ccTLD (17 Million). So when we make maximum demands (like yours) we will have a predictable outcome: Rejection and failure. There is a current AGB. It DOES deny the allocation of ISO 3166 and territory names – WE want a lift on that ban. A change. If we ask too much: The change will just not happen. I have participated in gNSO work as soon as 2006 – trust me: You must be more patient. ESPECIALLY with Governments. For both: .berlin and .gay we had to do A LOT of lobbying. For many, many years. There were forces trying to trash both. Thanks, Alexander Schubert From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:59 AM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hi Alexander, Thank you for your comments! I think that making 3-letter country codes available should be done outside of the next gTLD round and on the same conditions at 2-letter country codes are now (http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation). This gives wider time range for countries to make their plans and makes it more realistic to achive the abitious plans of realeasing the rest on 3rd gTLD round. Setting some price tag on the application that could but from our - small country and even smaller registry - point of view is hopefully not set as high as the gTLD applications, would help in avoiding delegations without no good reason. I do not share your view on the seriousness of the problems you pointed out. "Countries" lacking interest on delegating 3-letter codes is good for gTLD community and puts some substance into the proposal. Whether "the countries" should have some saying on who gets the delegation of the country code after the release for general gTLD registration is a subject for debate. I do not see this absolutely necessary. But this can happen only after "the countries" have had reasonable time to decide if they want to user their priority. I also think that it is not necessary or even smart for ICANN to attempt to control the reasoning why anyone wants the delegation. Who is to decide that Macao is too small to secure .mac for any other reason than denying the option for the Apple. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hello Timo, I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element? So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that: 1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator) 2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User! You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here: * Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu <http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either. * So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being: o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory). o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie <http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie <http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code. So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous. There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us? 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: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hello everybody, I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision. It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate. For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step. We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round. The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case. After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well. In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward. All questions and comments are very welcome. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation <http://www.internet.ee> www.internet.ee _______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:Ctn-crosscom@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Hi Alexander, I agree with your point on governments/GAC not wanting to give up the control over the 3 letter codes and full names for that matter. So in that sense I admit the wishful thinking there. Also thank you Annebeth for your comment on the formal difference of gTLD and ccTLD. On that matter I continue to be in position that 3-letter codes as well as full country names should be treated as ccTLDs because I cannot imagine a government that would be fond of idea that their national TLD would be subject of ICANN's and US regulations instead of local ones. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Timo,
We run into a classic policy problematic:
The realm of what makes “sense” vs the realm of real life demands. Look at ANY issue: Abortion, Immigration, Surveillance: It all boils down to two fractions that each have their arguments and perceived needs to protect this or that group (e.g. mother vs unborn life, etc).
I think it is not our job to create the most sense making suggestion. Because in all likelihood the GAC will just not like – and consequently trash it. If we force a Chinese territory to choose between becoming an applicant for .mac or see its arch enemy USA snacking it up to be used with one of their tech giants: China will explode. You just can’t do that to a nation. It must be done the other way around: Without the express permission of China (Macao in this case) no one will be able to get the delegation of .mac. Basta. And I personally know a number of GAC members who would go to any length to defend that stance. The ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes are seen as useless for most nations. They are either so small they just do not need another ccTLD-like gTLD – or the code has no resemblance at all! Like “.deu” – I assure you that 95% of average Germans presented with “deu” would not be able to guess what that should represent. And we are talking about a 82 Million nation with the largest ccTLD (17 Million).
So when we make maximum demands (like yours) we will have a predictable outcome: Rejection and failure. There is a current AGB. It DOES deny the allocation of ISO 3166 and territory names – WE want a lift on that ban. A change. If we ask too much: The change will just not happen. I have participated in gNSO work as soon as 2006 – trust me: You must be more patient. ESPECIALLY with Governments. For both: .berlin and .gay we had to do A LOT of lobbying. For many, many years. There were forces trying to trash both.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:59 AM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hi Alexander,
Thank you for your comments! I think that making 3-letter country codes available should be done outside of the next gTLD round and on the same conditions at 2-letter country codes are now ( http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation). This gives wider time range for countries to make their plans and makes it more realistic to achive the abitious plans of realeasing the rest on 3rd gTLD round. Setting some price tag on the application that could but from our - small country and even smaller registry - point of view is hopefully not set as high as the gTLD applications, would help in avoiding delegations without no good reason.
I do not share your view on the seriousness of the problems you pointed out.
"Countries" lacking interest on delegating 3-letter codes is good for gTLD community and puts some substance into the proposal. Whether "the countries" should have some saying on who gets the delegation of the country code after the release for general gTLD registration is a subject for debate. I do not see this absolutely necessary. But this can happen only after "the countries" have had reasonable time to decide if they want to user their priority.
I also think that it is not necessary or even smart for ICANN to attempt to control the reasoning why anyone wants the delegation. Who is to decide that Macao is too small to secure .mac for any other reason than denying the option for the Apple.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hello Timo,
I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element?
So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that:
1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator)
2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User!
You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here:
· Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either.
· So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being:
o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory).
o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie or www.moonlanding.lie – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code.
So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous.
There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us?
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hello everybody,
I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision.
It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate.
For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step.
We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round.
The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case.
After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well.
In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward.
All questions and comments are very welcome.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
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
Hi Timo, Thanks! Well. At the moment there are two tracks to delegate TLD’s: * You acquire a ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 code and then request delegation as ccTLD * You apply in one of the following new gTLD rounds Adding new delegation tracks will most likely lead to only one thing: Confusion and delay. Because where do you draw the line? Why shouldn’t .ankara be treated like a ccTLD as well – being the capital of Turkey? What’s with .provence? The more levels of complication we add the more unlikely it is that we get what we want. I might sound like a coward and pragmatic – but when it comes to the GAC and gNSO you have to be. Thanks, Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Timo Võhmar Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:39 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hi Alexander, I agree with your point on governments/GAC not wanting to give up the control over the 3 letter codes and full names for that matter. So in that sense I admit the wishful thinking there. Also thank you Annebeth for your comment on the formal difference of gTLD and ccTLD. On that matter I continue to be in position that 3-letter codes as well as full country names should be treated as ccTLDs because I cannot imagine a government that would be fond of idea that their national TLD would be subject of ICANN's and US regulations instead of local ones. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi Timo, We run into a classic policy problematic: The realm of what makes “sense” vs the realm of real life demands. Look at ANY issue: Abortion, Immigration, Surveillance: It all boils down to two fractions that each have their arguments and perceived needs to protect this or that group (e.g. mother vs unborn life, etc). I think it is not our job to create the most sense making suggestion. Because in all likelihood the GAC will just not like – and consequently trash it. If we force a Chinese territory to choose between becoming an applicant for .mac or see its arch enemy USA snacking it up to be used with one of their tech giants: China will explode. You just can’t do that to a nation. It must be done the other way around: Without the express permission of China (Macao in this case) no one will be able to get the delegation of .mac. Basta. And I personally know a number of GAC members who would go to any length to defend that stance. The ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes are seen as useless for most nations. They are either so small they just do not need another ccTLD-like gTLD – or the code has no resemblance at all! Like “.deu” – I assure you that 95% of average Germans presented with “deu” would not be able to guess what that should represent. And we are talking about a 82 Million nation with the largest ccTLD (17 Million). So when we make maximum demands (like yours) we will have a predictable outcome: Rejection and failure. There is a current AGB. It DOES deny the allocation of ISO 3166 and territory names – WE want a lift on that ban. A change. If we ask too much: The change will just not happen. I have participated in gNSO work as soon as 2006 – trust me: You must be more patient. ESPECIALLY with Governments. For both: .berlin and .gay we had to do A LOT of lobbying. For many, many years. There were forces trying to trash both. 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: Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:59 AM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hi Alexander, Thank you for your comments! I think that making 3-letter country codes available should be done outside of the next gTLD round and on the same conditions at 2-letter country codes are now (http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation). This gives wider time range for countries to make their plans and makes it more realistic to achive the abitious plans of realeasing the rest on 3rd gTLD round. Setting some price tag on the application that could but from our - small country and even smaller registry - point of view is hopefully not set as high as the gTLD applications, would help in avoiding delegations without no good reason. I do not share your view on the seriousness of the problems you pointed out. "Countries" lacking interest on delegating 3-letter codes is good for gTLD community and puts some substance into the proposal. Whether "the countries" should have some saying on who gets the delegation of the country code after the release for general gTLD registration is a subject for debate. I do not see this absolutely necessary. But this can happen only after "the countries" have had reasonable time to decide if they want to user their priority. I also think that it is not necessary or even smart for ICANN to attempt to control the reasoning why anyone wants the delegation. Who is to decide that Macao is too small to secure .mac for any other reason than denying the option for the Apple. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hello Timo, I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element? So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that: 1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator) 2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User! You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here: * Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu <http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either. * So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being: o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory). o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie <http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie <http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code. So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous. There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us? 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: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hello everybody, I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision. It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate. For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step. We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round. The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case. After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well. In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward. All questions and comments are very welcome. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation <http://www.internet.ee> 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
Hi Alexander, Thank you for your comment. But that is exactly what I was proposing adding alpha 3 codes to the same track with alpha 2 codes. That is with 2 round release. So for the 2nd round where three letters (and full names for that matter) would get released to general public as gTLDs the process could follow gTLD application process. Of course the alternative here would be that there is no 2 separate rounds for releasing these domains and from the start anyone can have these with the consent and approval of the government of the related country, but even in that case it could be solved depending on who is the applicant - for example if it is the current 2 letter ccTLD manager or some other government founded or controlled organisation the ccTLD process could be used and on other cases the gTLD. I can imagine this being much more complicated than things are now - just a little bit :). My point is that GAC members (the governments) would not like to see their national TLD not being a subject of local regulations - that is unless they decide to release the respective TLD for general/commercial use. We as a ccTLD would also hate to follow ICANNs current regulations - the personal data privacy does not meet ours, I do not know how the requirement of sharing all the registry data with ICANN complies with EU privacy laws and upcoming NIS directive if at all - I have my doubts on that, the amount of personal data required to collect is nonsense etc. But that is totally different topic and just one opinion. In response to your rhetorical question about geo TLDs, I do think that these could have or should have been handled as ccTLDs as well, but the 1st round is in the past now and this does not have to mean that everything has to follow the same track and nothing can be changed or improved - doesn't it? I might be too idealistic - but the choice between gTLD and ccTLD tracks is done once for these domains and I cannot imagine deviation from the geo TLD path being a deal breaker here. In my mind it would even help. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 4:55 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Timo,
Thanks!
Well. At the moment there are two tracks to delegate TLD’s:
· You acquire a ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 code and then request delegation as ccTLD
· You apply in one of the following new gTLD rounds
Adding new delegation tracks will most likely lead to only one thing: Confusion and delay. Because where do you draw the line? Why shouldn’t .ankara be treated like a ccTLD as well – being the capital of Turkey? What’s with .provence?
The more levels of complication we add the more unlikely it is that we get what we want. I might sound like a coward and pragmatic – but when it comes to the GAC and gNSO you have to be.
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 4:39 PM
*To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hi Alexander,
I agree with your point on governments/GAC not wanting to give up the control over the 3 letter codes and full names for that matter. So in that sense I admit the wishful thinking there.
Also thank you Annebeth for your comment on the formal difference of gTLD and ccTLD. On that matter I continue to be in position that 3-letter codes as well as full country names should be treated as ccTLDs because I cannot imagine a government that would be fond of idea that their national TLD would be subject of ICANN's and US regulations instead of local ones.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 3:13 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Timo,
We run into a classic policy problematic:
The realm of what makes “sense” vs the realm of real life demands. Look at ANY issue: Abortion, Immigration, Surveillance: It all boils down to two fractions that each have their arguments and perceived needs to protect this or that group (e.g. mother vs unborn life, etc).
I think it is not our job to create the most sense making suggestion. Because in all likelihood the GAC will just not like – and consequently trash it. If we force a Chinese territory to choose between becoming an applicant for .mac or see its arch enemy USA snacking it up to be used with one of their tech giants: China will explode. You just can’t do that to a nation. It must be done the other way around: Without the express permission of China (Macao in this case) no one will be able to get the delegation of .mac. Basta. And I personally know a number of GAC members who would go to any length to defend that stance. The ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes are seen as useless for most nations. They are either so small they just do not need another ccTLD-like gTLD – or the code has no resemblance at all! Like “.deu” – I assure you that 95% of average Germans presented with “deu” would not be able to guess what that should represent. And we are talking about a 82 Million nation with the largest ccTLD (17 Million).
So when we make maximum demands (like yours) we will have a predictable outcome: Rejection and failure. There is a current AGB. It DOES deny the allocation of ISO 3166 and territory names – WE want a lift on that ban. A change. If we ask too much: The change will just not happen. I have participated in gNSO work as soon as 2006 – trust me: You must be more patient. ESPECIALLY with Governments. For both: .berlin and .gay we had to do A LOT of lobbying. For many, many years. There were forces trying to trash both.
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Thursday, June 02, 2016 11:59 AM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hi Alexander,
Thank you for your comments! I think that making 3-letter country codes available should be done outside of the next gTLD round and on the same conditions at 2-letter country codes are now ( http://www.iana.org/help/cctld-delegation). This gives wider time range for countries to make their plans and makes it more realistic to achive the abitious plans of realeasing the rest on 3rd gTLD round. Setting some price tag on the application that could but from our - small country and even smaller registry - point of view is hopefully not set as high as the gTLD applications, would help in avoiding delegations without no good reason.
I do not share your view on the seriousness of the problems you pointed out.
"Countries" lacking interest on delegating 3-letter codes is good for gTLD community and puts some substance into the proposal. Whether "the countries" should have some saying on who gets the delegation of the country code after the release for general gTLD registration is a subject for debate. I do not see this absolutely necessary. But this can happen only after "the countries" have had reasonable time to decide if they want to user their priority.
I also think that it is not necessary or even smart for ICANN to attempt to control the reasoning why anyone wants the delegation. Who is to decide that Macao is too small to secure .mac for any other reason than denying the option for the Apple.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee
On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hello Timo,
I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element?
So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that:
1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator)
2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User!
You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here:
· Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either.
· So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being:
o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory).
o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie or www.moonlanding.lie – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code.
So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous.
There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us?
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:* ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hello everybody,
I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision.
It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate.
For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step.
We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round.
The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case.
After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well.
In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward.
All questions and comments are very welcome.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
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
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Alexander, All As we see, there are lot of exemptions, various approaches, different arguments how to use country and territory names as gTLD. Current discussion is related to very small part off the problem - how to use 3166 alpha-3 code element. But there are lot of other country and territory names - official name, short name of the country (may be territory also) etc. - Study Group have prepared a document on that. Discussion on each item will take lot of time - as we see it on 3166 alpha-3 code. In this regards I want to remind my proposal - to underline these all C&T related names in the user browser, possible to do it using different colors (example - SSL certificate indication in the address bar of the browser). In that case end user will have additional information - is it a gTLD or it is a ccTLD. Of course, it may take some time to describe end users the meaning of this difference. In that case each country will be able to deal with related names as they want - Germany can continue his policy, Macao can sell this name of keep it for own usage etc. Technically it is not a problem - how to implement this approach. Grigori Saghyan ISOC.AM On 01.06.2016 18:59, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hello Timo,
I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element?
So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that:
1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator)
2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User!
You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3^rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here:
· Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu <http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either.
· So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being:
o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory).
o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie <http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie <http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code.
So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3^rd round” might be a bit ambiguous.
There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us?
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
*From:*ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Timo Võhmar *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hello everybody,
I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision.
It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate.
For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step.
We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round.
The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case.
After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well.
In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward.
All questions and comments are very welcome.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
www.internet.ee <http://www.internet.ee>
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Grigori, I admire your phantasy. But your suggestion is simply way too intelligent (albeit I like it). This is ICANN: We need SIMPLE solutions that do not interfere with ANY third parties (such as browser makers). BTW: I don’t think this discussion is about ISO 3166 elements only. Seemingly it is about ISO 3166 and territory names (which are in some cases identical). What bothers me a bit is that a few people (us) attempt make rules that then impact hundreds of Governments. As we see Estonia wants .est! They weren’t aware AT ALL that they couldn’t apply. The next round is 4 years away: Who knows in how many countries fruitful ideas will be born – and can’t come to life because we make rules not knowing the real demand. My take on all of this: We should first find an agreement on whether or not we WANT to find a mechanism that would: * Preserve the interest of the nations in their territory names and 3166 codes by initially exempting them from being eligible for application * How to enable a nation to allow a registrant to apply for such gTLD Are there really many who demand from GAC to give up ALL protection? Remember: In the 2012 round not only ISO316 codes were prohibited, even THEIR PERMUTATIONS! So not only .DEU, but also .UDE and .EUD! As if someone might mistake EUD or UDE for Germany? Just to convince them to trash the permutation rule is a challenge probably. Thanks, Alexander From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Grigori Saghyan Sent: Thursday, June 02, 2016 12:39 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Dear Alexander, All As we see, there are lot of exemptions, various approaches, different arguments how to use country and territory names as gTLD. Current discussion is related to very small part off the problem - how to use 3166 alpha-3 code element. But there are lot of other country and territory names - official name, short name of the country (may be territory also) etc. - Study Group have prepared a document on that. Discussion on each item will take lot of time - as we see it on 3166 alpha-3 code. In this regards I want to remind my proposal - to underline these all C&T related names in the user browser, possible to do it using different colors (example - SSL certificate indication in the address bar of the browser). In that case end user will have additional information - is it a gTLD or it is a ccTLD. Of course, it may take some time to describe end users the meaning of this difference. In that case each country will be able to deal with related names as they want - Germany can continue his policy, Macao can sell this name of keep it for own usage etc. Technically it is not a problem - how to implement this approach. Grigori Saghyan ISOC.AM On 01.06.2016 18:59, Alexander Schubert wrote: Hello Timo, I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element? So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that: 1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator) 2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User! You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here: * Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: www.irgendwas.deu <http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either. * So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being: o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory). o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like www.911.lie <http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie <http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code. So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous. There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us? 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: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org <mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hello everybody, I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision. It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate. For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step. We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round. The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case. After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well. In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward. All questions and comments are very welcome. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation 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
Hi Grigory, As a newcomer to this list I am not aware of the details of your proposal. But reading this few questions pop in mind. Who and how will maintaint and update the statuses of the TLDs? Is it substantive or formal classification? For example Google considers 19 of ccTLDs as generic ( https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/62399?hl=en&rd=1) because how these TLDs are operated and used. But most importantly my question is why would an internet user care if it is cc or gTLD? There is absolutely no difference in my mind. And this is more and more true for registrants as well. At the moment the only real difference is the google search algorithm and there also the user location keeps getting smaller and smaller part in the ratings calculations. So technically I do not see any difference every TLD is what the operator/manager is making of it with their policies, practices and marketing. I might not see what you are seeing here and thus might be off with my questions. Sorry if that is the case. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Grigori Saghyan <gregor@arminco.com> wrote:
Dear Alexander, All As we see, there are lot of exemptions, various approaches, different arguments how to use country and territory names as gTLD. Current discussion is related to very small part off the problem - how to use 3166 alpha-3 code element. But there are lot of other country and territory names - official name, short name of the country (may be territory also) etc. - Study Group have prepared a document on that. Discussion on each item will take lot of time - as we see it on 3166 alpha-3 code. In this regards I want to remind my proposal - to underline these all C&T related names in the user browser, possible to do it using different colors (example - SSL certificate indication in the address bar of the browser). In that case end user will have additional information - is it a gTLD or it is a ccTLD. Of course, it may take some time to describe end users the meaning of this difference. In that case each country will be able to deal with related names as they want - Germany can continue his policy, Macao can sell this name of keep it for own usage etc. Technically it is not a problem - how to implement this approach.
Grigori Saghyan ISOC.AM On 01.06.2016 18:59, Alexander Schubert wrote:
Hello Timo,
I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element?
So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that:
1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator)
2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User!
You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here:
· Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: <http://www.irgendwas.deu>www.irgendwas.deu looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either.
· So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being:
o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory).
o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like <http://www.911.lie>www.911.lie or www.moonlanding.lie – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code.
So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous.
There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us?
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:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM *To:* ctn-crosscom@icann.org *Subject:* [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes
Hello everybody,
I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision.
It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate.
For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step.
We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round.
The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case.
After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well.
In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward.
All questions and comments are very welcome.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
Arendusjuht / Head of development
Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation
<http://www.internet.ee>www.internet.ee
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing listCtn-crosscom@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
_______________________________________________ Ctn-crosscom mailing list Ctn-crosscom@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
Dear Timo, Just a quick note. In my mind the main difference between a ccTLD and a gTLD is that a ccTLD is run by local laws, nationally, ref RFC 1591. A gTLD has a contract with ICANN and is under US law. This might not seem important, but especially in case of conflicts, it is. Kind regards, Annebeth From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Timo Võhmar Date: Thursday 2 June 2016 at 14:43 To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org>" Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hi Grigory, As a newcomer to this list I am not aware of the details of your proposal. But reading this few questions pop in mind. Who and how will maintaint and update the statuses of the TLDs? Is it substantive or formal classification? For example Google considers 19 of ccTLDs as generic (https://support.google.com/webmasters/answer/62399?hl=en&rd=1) because how these TLDs are operated and used. But most importantly my question is why would an internet user care if it is cc or gTLD? There is absolutely no difference in my mind. And this is more and more true for registrants as well. At the moment the only real difference is the google search algorithm and there also the user location keeps getting smaller and smaller part in the ratings calculations. So technically I do not see any difference every TLD is what the operator/manager is making of it with their policies, practices and marketing. I might not see what you are seeing here and thus might be off with my questions. Sorry if that is the case. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation www.internet.ee<http://www.internet.ee> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:39 PM, Grigori Saghyan <gregor@arminco.com<mailto:gregor@arminco.com>> wrote: Dear Alexander, All As we see, there are lot of exemptions, various approaches, different arguments how to use country and territory names as gTLD. Current discussion is related to very small part off the problem - how to use 3166 alpha-3 code element. But there are lot of other country and territory names - official name, short name of the country (may be territory also) etc. - Study Group have prepared a document on that. Discussion on each item will take lot of time - as we see it on 3166 alpha-3 code. In this regards I want to remind my proposal - to underline these all C&T related names in the user browser, possible to do it using different colors (example - SSL certificate indication in the address bar of the browser). In that case end user will have additional information - is it a gTLD or it is a ccTLD. Of course, it may take some time to describe end users the meaning of this difference. In that case each country will be able to deal with related names as they want - Germany can continue his policy, Macao can sell this name of keep it for own usage etc. Technically it is not a problem - how to implement this approach. Grigori Saghyan ISOC.AM<http://ISOC.AM> On 01.06.2016 18:59, Alexander Schubert wrote: Hello Timo, I welcome someone stepping forward, too, announcing plans to base a round 2 gTLD application on a territory name or 3166 aplha-3 code element. And I second your notion that if such application were in conjunction and support with the respective nation (relevant Government authority) and maybe even the ccTLD operator: Who should deny them to utilize that 3166 aplha-3 code element? So it all boils down to create a simple yet effective rule that: 1. Enables an applicant to use a 3166 aplha-3 code element (or territory name like .spain) for a gTLD application – if they are vetted by the Government (and maybe by the ccTLD operator) 2. Prevents entities from luring Governments into granting some “letter of non-objection” – maybe even based on bribes or sheer lack of expertise within the Government – thus creating harm to the Internet User! You made a suggestion for such mechanism: Allow “the country” to use the code as gTLD first – then in the 3rd round make them generally available. While manageable and desirable in your specific case I think we run into serious problems here: · Some countries have ZERO oversight over TLD’s in their territory. Germany for example. The German Government has absolutely no stakes, saying or influence over any German gTLD – or ccTLD. And by now there is a BUNCH of German geo-gTLD’s (6) plus of course “.de”. So the German Government wouldn’t voice any interest in applying for .deu: Not their job! Plus: <http://www.irgendwas.deu> www.irgendwas.deu<http://www.irgendwas.deu> looks more than odd. I am the greatest lover of geo gTLD’s, believe me that, but “.deu” seen from the eyes of the German Internet User is about as alluring as “.hrv” for people in Croatia or “.lva” for people in Latvia. So I do not see DENIC eG (the .de registry) to apply for it either. · So most nations would probably NOT “secure” their 3166 aplha-3 code element. But many would OBJECT to some foreign (e.g. American) entity snagging up their 3166 aplha-3 code element as gTLD! Examples being: o MAC (Macao): I don’t see a Wyoming sized nation (650k people) needing .mac – but I am also not sure they want to leave it to Apple! After all it’s a territory controlled by China. I don’t see China being happy if some territory (and being it virtual) being snagged up by an U.S. entity – they are certainly not happy about such incidents in the real world (they are even angry when a U.S. plane flies over their territory). o LIE (Liechtenstein): 37k people – I think their ccTLD is enough. But I also think that the Prince of Liechtenstein wouldn’t be too amused about domains like <http://www.911.lie> www.911.lie<http://www.911.lie> or www.moonlanding.lie<http://www.moonlanding.lie> – because they Lichtensteiners have probably no aim (or capabilities) at landing on the moon and also do not use 911 as emergency code. So I assume the jump from “not available under ANY circumstances” to “completely unrestricted in the 3rd round” might be a bit ambiguous. There must be a mechanism in place that reserves these territory names or 3166 aplha-3 code elements – but makes them available when certain criteria are met. These seemingly involve the relevant Government and maybe the associated ccTLD operator. Has anyone a suggestion how this could be crafted? Do we know whether the GAC has already suggestions – or do they wait for us? 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: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 2:43 PM To: ctn-crosscom@icann.org<mailto:ctn-crosscom@icann.org> Subject: [Ctn-crosscom] ISO 3-letter country codes Hello everybody, I am Timo from Estonian Internet Foundation the ccTLD of Estonia (.ee), fresh observer in this WG. We have had some thoughts on the 3-letter ISO country codes for some time already playing with an idea how to use it. The CENTR survey some time ago on the topic of releasing the 3-letter codes as gTLDs made us move a bit quicker and form our ideas to a vision. It was a suprise when we found out that 3-letter codes are not reserved currently for countries but for future use. When we replied to the CENTR survey we had an impression that countries just do not see the value in 3-letter codes for them selves - to avoid confusion for registrants and unnecessary competition on ccTLD level. So we were quite positive in our answers toward releasing the codes as unused resource. But everything changed for us when we found out that even countries cannot have these under any condition. I know we were not the only ones under this false presumption as this topic has not been much discussed before and I would like to give my contribution to this debate. For starters we think that current status quo of just holding back the 3-letter codes like any other such reserved lists (AGB etc) is not ideal. It is unused resource that is of value and after making the new gTLD revolution it seems logical to put these in use as well. But we do not support releasing the country codes as gTLDs as the first step. We support doing this in two steps - making the 3-letter codes available to countries and after everyone that has an idea or sees an importance in securing the domain for that particular country the rest of the codes should be made available to everyone in some future gTLD round. The reasoning for this is simple - generally 3-letter codes are more closely related to the country name than 2-letter codes. And this is a big risk for these ccTLDs for obvious reasons like false association. We do not see the .com example as a precedent for releasing all others as well - this is traditional gTLD, has well known meaning and should be considered as exception in this case. After the release of IDN country code TLDs there are now three letter ccTLDs out there as well so there is no clear differentiation between ccTLDs and gTLDs by looking at the number of letters in TLD. Furthermore some ccTLDs are operated as gTLDs (.me, .tv, .io etc). So this argument is no good as well. In short we see the two step release of 3-letter ISO country codes as an alternative to the current status quo, a compromise to break the stalemate and move things forward. All questions and comments are very welcome. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Arendusjuht / Head of development Eesti Interneti SA / Estonian Internet Foundation <http://www.internet.ee>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
participants (4)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Annebeth Lange -
Grigori Saghyan -
Timo Võhmar