New subject: [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

Jan. 24, 2017

Thank you Maxim,

I agree with you, I also understand and respect Alexander's opinion and I
am not trying to change the fact that this group was not able to come to an
agreement on how to lift the delegation block from ISO 3 letter country
codes and country names.

What this argument here is about for me is to try to avoid making
subjective interpretation in the final report on Internet history of one
side as universally accepted fact ie not to use claims like "... simple and
long-standing principle that 2-character codes are ccTLDs and 3+-character
codes are gTLDs". Or if this is strong opinion of one side then balance it
out with counter opinion that

RFC1591 states closed list of 3 letter codes as gTLDs and ISO 3166 2 letter
codes as ccTLDs that rule was broken in 2000 with extending the closed gTLD
list with additional names and again in 2012 with making anything except
iso 3 letter list and country names as potential gTLD - not really simple
nor long-standing. RFC1591 also states "It is extremely unlikely that any
other TLDs will be created". That does not specify the type of TLD so it is
equally likely and possible to extend ccTLD list as it was for gTLD. Giving
out internationally recognized and used country codes to general commercial
use is big risk for many countries and as such is unacceptable, but denying
the right to use the code in national interests is also questionable.

Best Regards
Timo Võhmar

On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:12 PM, Maxim Alzoba <m.alzoba@gmail.com> wrote:

> Hello Timo,
>
> it is what caused major controversy in the community.
>
> Arguments were(my simplified version):
>
> from one side:
>  .com is not with "Union of the Comoros" and more than 10 3-letters
> already in the gTLDs ...
> so what is the reason behind the rule which already does not work?
>
> from the other side:
> it is all about protection of the said 3-letter codes taken from ISO
> 3166-1 alpha-3
> for countries.
>
> so those ideas are mutually exclusive, and it is the reason we can not
> finish the work of building a unified framework.
>
> P.s: since you and Alexander are from those different groups of people, I
> am not sure you will find agreement with him.
>
> P.P.s: I understand and respect both points of view, but I do not see the
> resolution too.
>
>
> Sincerely Yours,
>
> Maxim Alzoba
> Special projects manager,
> International Relations Department,
> FAITID
>
> m. +7 916 6761580
> skype oldfrogger
>
> Current UTC offset: +3.00 (Moscow)
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 2017, at 12:47, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexander,
> >
> > I do not agree with your way of bending facts. The fact is, like you
> referred that "God" said, that this is the list of gTLDs  (EDU, COM, NET,
> ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT) and there is also a list of ccTLDs corresponding to
> the list of ISO 3166. The separation here is not specified as the length of
> the TLD but the meaning - country specific vs for general use. All other
> interpretations are subjective interpretations of the fact. So my question
> here is if it was possible to extend the list of domains for generic or
> general use how is extending the list of TLDs for government or national
> community use different and all of a sudden against everything holy in the
> internet. So I continue to stand behind the opinion that we should avoid
> such allegations.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Timo Võhmar
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 4:33 PM, Alexander Schubert
> <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
> > Timo,
> >
> >
> >
> > Sorry, but please study RFC 1591 written in 1994 by Jon Postel (think
> of him as “God” for the DNS community – which would be a clear
> understatement) himself: rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt
> > It clearly specifies:
> >
> >
> >
> > “There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).
> >
> >   These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT),
> >
> >    and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166.”
> >
> > This order has been never once disrupted – all that happened is that
> more gTLDs were ADDED: Their character remained unchanged: Longer than 2
> letters! That 2-letter TLDs are ccTLDs is not just a “long standing
> principle” – it is THE ONLY principle since the inception of the DNS in
> 1984. Postel thought it was “unlikely” that more TLD’s would be added – but
> “unlikely” is not “can never be”; and evidently it happened. But the strict
> separation of ccTLDs and gTLDs remained intact since the inception of the
> DNS.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Alexander
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee]
> > Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:05 PM
> > To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>
> > Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi all,
> >
> >
> >
> > Also agree with Alexander's comments.
> >
> >
> >
> > In addition I would also like to point out that in number of places ie
> page 22,  page 23 etc there is a claim "...is not consistent with or
> supported by the simple and long-standing principle that 2-character codes
> are ccTLDs and 3+-character codes are gTLDs." There is no such long-lasting
> principle. There was a principle that 2 letters were country codes, five 3
> letter generics and one infrastructure TLD (.arpa). That was extended in
> 2000 with 7 new TLDs. Principle here is closed list of gTLDs and as many 2
> letter country codes as there are countries. But that went out of the
> window with the first round of new gTLDs. Typing + after number 3, stating
> that whole string space starting from 3 letters was designed for use as
> gTLD and saying that this has always been how internet was made is ... lets
> just say wrong. I suggest to use more intelligent arguments when describing
> different opinions of this group.
> >
> >
> >
> > The whole 5.2.6 paragraph is very painful read clearly written in free
> for all spirit as I see only how all arguments hinting an option for
> anything else than dropping the protection and giving unlimited access to
> iso 3 letter country codes are criticized. Was this really so one sided
> discussion in this group? I was not here at that time, so I really do not
> know. But after reading this, it is amazing to find out that there is no
> recommendation to give.
> >
> > I see clear recommendation in 5.2.6 and conflicting conclusion in 5.3.
> >
> >
> >
> > Best Regards,
> >
> > Timo Võhmar
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Annebeth Lange <
> annebeth.lange@uninett.no> wrote:
> >
> > Hi Alexander and all,
> >
> >
> >
> > I agree with your input, Alexander.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards
> >
> > Annebeth Lange
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > From: <ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org> on behalf of Alexander Schubert
> > Reply-To: "alexander@schubert.berlin"
> > Date: Wednesday 25 January 2017 at 23:32
> > To: "ctn-crosscom@icann.org"
> >
> >
> > Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment
> >
> >
> >
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> >
> > Page 21 the three preferences how alpha-3 codes could be handled:
> >
> >
> >
> > 1) support for opening all ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to eligiblity as
> gTLDs  (eligibility is misspelled - and the sentence makes no sense!
> Probably meant as: "...... to be eligible as gTLDs"?)
> >
> >
> > I do not see any more the option that has already garnered a LOT of
> support: Treating the 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes like ALL other
> designators in the ISO 3166 (e.g. “BAR” or “TATA”): In the existing AG for
> ALL 3166 listed elements there is a requirement that the relevant
> Government authority has to sign a letter of non-objection!
> >
> > So I suggest we either add to 1) that OF COURSE the already established
> AG requirement for a letter of non-objection would be triggered for alpha-3
> codes as well!
> >
> > Or we have a 4th preference.
> > Indeed: Annex D provides for FOUR possibilities discussed by the SOs/ACs.
> >
> >
> > On page 22 it says:
> >
> > “Supporting to open all 3-character codes as gTLDs:
> > •             There is no sovereign or other ownership right of
> governments in country or territory names, including ISO 3166-1 codes, so
> there is no legal basis for government veto power on allocation of these
> codes as gTLDs”
> >
> >
> >
> > Not true! The AG has a provision whereby ALL ISO 3166 elements need a
> letter of non-objection of the Government! See “.bar” or “.tata”! Obviously
> if already a tiny mini municipality like the TATA region (15,000 people,
> all desert, no industry, but listed in ISO 3166) requires such a letter
> then OF COURSE a 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 code requires it as well!
> >
> >
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> >
> >
> > Alexander Schubert
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@
> icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
> > Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:26 PM
> > To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
> > Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org
> > Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Jaap,
> >
> >
> >
> > Thank you for your review and feedback. Staff will review the formatting
> and content of the frames.
> >
> >
> >
> > Kind regards,
> >
> > Emily
> >
> >
> >
> > On 25/01/17 04:48, "Jaap Akkerhuis" <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >      Emily Barabas writes:
> >
> >
> >
> >      > Please find attached a revised version of the CWG-UCTN Interim
> Paper.
> >
> >      > This version incorporates language to reflect a lack of consensus
> on
> >
> >      > recommendation 3.
> >
> >      >
> >
> >      >
> >
> >      > Kindly provide any final revisions or comments on the Interim
> Paper by
> >
> >      > Friday 3 February.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Dear Emily,
> >
> >
> >
> >     I did a quick scan and noticed that something went with the two
> >
> >     "Frames" about the ISO 3166. They now look as a single one to me. But
> >
> >     apart from that, the first one seemed to have a garbled sentences
> here
> >
> >     and there. Note the start of the second section, to quote:
> >
> >
> >
> >                 The ISO body responsible for the standard 3166 is the
> >
> >                 Technical Committee 46, systems etc. and as non-current,
> >
> >                 dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical
> >
> >                 interest (ISO/TC 46/WG2).
> >
> >
> >
> >     And there are more of these.
> >
> >
> >
> >     I will have a nore close read later, but these things really needs to
> >
> >     be clean up.
> >
> >
> >
> >     Regards,
> >
> >
> >
> >                 jaap
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> >
> > 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
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ctn-crosscom mailing list
> > Ctn-crosscom@icann.org
> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom
>
>
>
>
>

Interim Paper for public comment

Emily Barabas

Jaap Akkerhuis

Emily Barabas

Alexander Schubert

Annebeth Lange

Timo Võhmar

Sahlman Sanna

Alexander Schubert

Rosalia Morales

Timo Võhmar

Alexander Schubert

Timo Võhmar

Maxim Alzoba

Timo Võhmar

Alexander Schubert

Timo Võhmar

tags

participants (8)