Hi all, We agree with Greg with respect to the issue of treatment of ISO 3166 3-letter codes. Best regards, Brian and Griffin ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Brian J. Winterfeldt Principal Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> brian@winterfeldt.law<mailto:brian@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 903 4422 ________________________________ [https://daks2k3a4ib2z.cloudfront.net/59358b8cf7332631232417e8/595fb59d73c5b113a1d2a61b_WIPG_LogoMark.png]<https://www.winterfeldt.law/> Griffin M. Barnett Associate Winterfeldt IP Group 1200 17<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>th<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> St NW<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1>, Ste 501<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> Washington, DC 20036<x-apple-data-detectors://12/1> griffin@winterfeldt.law<mailto:griffin@winterfeldt.law> +1 202 759 5836 From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Greg Shatan Sent: Monday, August 13, 2018 12:04 AM To: alexander@schubert.berlin Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. A few thoughts on the ISO 3166 3-letter codes. First, WT5 is fully competent to deal wit the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3155 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated. These are in the gTLD space. Second, I would strongly object to any restriction on 3-letter strings that DO NOT match existing ISO 3166 letter codes. The "original" gTLDs were three letter strings -- .com, .net, .org, .gov. .mil, .int, .edu. Third, there is no "tradition" of (or technological reason for) ISO 3166 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories. So why make that assumption now? Fourth, I agree with Farzaneh that adding current ccTLD operators into the mix as part of the privileged class makes this recommendation an unfathomable mess. This is not the time or the place to discuss the myriad ways that ccTLD operators do or don't relate to the countries that the ccTLD is related to. And let's certainly not get into the issues raised by ccTLDs that function as gTLDs but are beyond the reach of gTLD policy. Let's just keep the ccTLD situation "unique" and move away from that electrified fence. Replicating the current ccTLD situation in the 3-letter space would be a gross error in judgment. Fifth, there are over 45 current ISO 3166 3-letter codes that are equivalent to strings with other meanings -- words in English or other languages, currently delegated gTLDs, or acronyms. Why should the future of these 3 letter strings have anything to do with any countries, where they have other significant meanings? Of course, nothing prevents a country or territory from applying for the related 3 letter code. The 3 letter codes with other meanings are: CODE Meaning Related Country or Territory AGO English word Angola AND English word Andorra ANT English word Netherlands Antilles ARE English word United Arab Emirates ARM English word Armenia BEL Italian word Belgium BEN First name Benin BRB Acronym for “Be Right Back” Barbados CAN English word Canada COD English word Congo, the Democratic Republic of the COG English word Congo COM Current gTLD Comoros CUB English word Cuba DOM First name (short for “Dominic”); BDSM term Dominican Republic ESP Acronym for “Extra-Sensory Perception” Spain EST Word in various languages Estonia FIN English word Finland FRA Italian France FRO English word Faroe Islands GAB English word Gabon GEO English word Georgia GIN English word Guinea GUM English word Guam GUY English word Guyana HUN English word Hungary IOT Acronym for “Internet of Things” British Indian Ocean Territory IRL Acronym for “Internet Resource Locater” or “In Real Life” Ireland JAM English word Jamaica KEN First name Kenya KIR Drink Kiribati LIE English word Liechtenstein LUX English word Luxembourg MAC Popular line of computers Macao MAR English word Morocco NCL Acronym for “National Consumers League” or “Norwegian Cruise Lines” New Caledonia NOR English word Norway PAN English word Panama PER English word Peru POL Short for “Politician” Poland PRY English word Paraguay QAT Narcotic leaf Qatar SAU German word Saudi Arabia SUR French word Suriname TON English word, French word Tonga TUN English word Tunisia VAT English word; Acronym for “Value Added Tax” Holy See (Vatican City State) I would recommend that we either make a policy determination now, including a statement of rationale, or that we just leave this for a future process. A tossed-off non-recommendation that seeks to limit or prejudice future policy work is really the worst of both worlds, and should be avoided. Personally, I would be in favor of a recommendation that makes the current 3166 3-letter codes "unreserved" and open for applications, with a restriction that any application that seeks to associate the TLD with the related country or territory requires the consent or non-objection of that country or territory. Best regards, Greg On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:12 PM Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Carlos, I start to better understand your motivation: And I agree with you that this WT5 can NOT state, that ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs can NEVER be assigned. Instead this WT5 simply agreed that it’s competence doesn’t mandate any decision – hence for the time being the AGB 2012 status will be upheld – until some other policy making body finds a solution in the future. But please let’s not already now create restrictions – if WT5 doesn’t have the competence to create a policy in regard to ISO 3166 Alpha-3 code element based gTLDs – then it surely doesn’t have the competence to create restrictions. Insofar my suggestion for the draft: Recommendation #2 (last sentence): “The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how alpha-3 codes listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.” Recommendation #3 (last sentence): “The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.” Recommendation #4 (last sentence): “The ICANN community may want to consider whether a future process should be established to determine if, when, and how country & territory short-form names listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard can be applied for.” The same for #5 to #8 What I honestly miss is an explanation why WT5 did not came up with a policy itself! It is my understanding that we declared the competence vested in the WT5 body as not authoritative enough to create policy. Right? In the future yet ANOTHER body (like the CWG or this WT5) will sit there and think: “Why have these people not simply created a policy”? We ought to explain ourselves! Because the explanation will provide clear guidance as to how a future policy making body has to be established. Remember: When we started WT5 we thought we find a solution. Then we suddenly declared ourselves “incompetent” – or not being authorized. Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>] On Behalf Of Carlos Raul Gutierrez Sent: Saturday, August 11, 2018 7:00 PM To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no>> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Annebeth, As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3 Letter codes: “The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names" My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is: “ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.” This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of ISO 3letter list. Thanks to all, --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 14:48, Annebeth Lange escribió: Hi Carlos Could I ask you for one clarification? If we open up for some 2-letter/letter combinations in the GNSO process, they will automatically be gTLDs. You don't think that will disturb the distinction we have had from the beginning that 2-characters are ccTLDs and 3 or more gTLDs? Kind regards, Annebeth Annebeth B Lange Special Adviser International Policy UNINETT Norid AS Phone: +47 959 11 559 Mail: annebeth.lange@norid.no<mailto:annebeth.lange@norid.no> 8. aug. 2018 kl. 22:43 skrev Carlos Raul Gutierrez <carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se>>: My comments to today's call: 1. "The ICANN Community may want to consider whether a future process should be established or determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant government authorities, may apply for country and territory names" This paragraph is the only sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation and should/could be redrafted. I wonder if it could be enhanced, or if the only way to go is deletion as CW suggested. A shorter more concise version? A more "liberal" version? How about: "ICANN may consider applications by specific interested parties, such as relevant authorities, of strings that are not current or future countries or territories." Ps: The text in Recommendation 1 "reserving ALL two character letter letter" combinations- can be enhanced. I wonder if it's truly ALL, or if the potential for future countries and potential combinations is really much less broad? Could that be qualified somehow? I can't think of a future .xx or .ññ country or territory and maybe we could tweak the language to open this a bit and garner broad community support to move forward. 2. Other than recommendation #1, I object strongly the text to "keep geo names from the delegation" in any other recommedation, unless a clear rationale is added to the recommendation 3. I hope no draft goes out before a substantial non-AGB names discussion has taken place, including to geographic related, cultural, linguistic and other social elements, ,like Apache Nation Best regards --- Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez carlosraul@gutierrez.se<mailto:carlosraul@gutierrez.se> +506 8837 7176 Aparatado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA El 2018-08-08 05:09, Emily Barabas escribió: Dear Work Track members, Please find attached suggested revisions to the draft recommendations shared yesterday. Please note that this revised text includes clarifications and typo corrections only. Feedback on some of the more substantive issues will be discussed further on today's call. Kind regards, Emily From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org>> on behalf of Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> Date: Monday, 6 August 2018 at 14:45 To: "gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>" <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call. Dear Work Track members, Please find below the proposed agenda for the WT5 call on Wednesday 8 August at 13:00 UTC: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Review of Consensus Call Process and Work Plan 3. Consensus Call on Country and Territory Names 4. Wrap Up - Non-AGB Terms 5. AOB On our upcoming call, the leadership team will introduce a work plan aimed at wrapping up WT5's work and delivering an Initial Report by the end of September. In maintaining this timeline, the leadership is seeking to ensure that Work Track 5 inputs can be effectively integrated into the work of the broader New gTLD Subsequent Procedures PDP Working Group in time for delivery of the PDP's Final Report. A copy of the work plan is attached. As outlined in the work plan, the leadership team will be holding a series of consensus calls on potential recommendations to include in WT5's Initial Report. These will be introduced in clusters, with the first set of recommendations focusing on country and territory names. The draft recommendations, which will be discussed on Wednesday, are attached. Work Track members are encouraged to review and provide feedback on these draft recommendations prior to the call on Wednesday. The leadership team will officially open the consensus call on this topic following Wednesday's call. For more information on the consensus call process that will be followed, please see the GNSO Working Group Guidelines, Section 3.6:https://gnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/file/field-file-attach/annex-1-gn... [gnso.icann.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__gnso.icann.org_sites_de...>. If you need a dial out for the upcoming call or would like to send an apology, please email gnso-secs@icann.org<mailto:gnso-secs@icann.org>. Kind regards, WT5 Co-Leads Annebeth Lange Javier Rua Olga Cavalli Martin Sutton The contents of this email message and any attachments are intended solely for the addressee(s) and may contain confidential and/or privileged information and may be legally protected from disclosure. If you are not the intended recipient of this message or their agent, or if this message has been addressed to you in error, please immediately alert the sender by reply email and then delete this message and any attachments. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, copying, or storage of this message or its attachments is strictly prohibited. _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.pdf> <Draft Recommendations - country and territory names - v4.docx> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
