Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest
I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: * We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! * We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! * What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com) or “.f1” (f1.com). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest
I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
· We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
· We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”!
· What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com) or “.f1” (f1.com). How many would that be? A dozen?
On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM *To:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues,
Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was:
"The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field- attached/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote:
I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support.
That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist.
I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so.
Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert < alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
· We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
· We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”!
· What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com) or “.f1” (f1.com). How many would that be? A dozen?
On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support!
Thanks,
Alexander
*From:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] *On Behalf Of *Heather Forrest *Sent:* Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM *To:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org *Subject:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues,
Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was:
"The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-atta ched/ccwg-ctn-final-paper-15jun17-en.pdf
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía [cid:B190111C-4AAD-456E-809F-8934B6CA8935] On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: • We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! • We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! • What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com<http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com<http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> > wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> > wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: * We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! * We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! * What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com <http://3m.com/> ) or “.f1” (f1.com <http://f1.com/> ). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Hi all, In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope. I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters. Best, Ann-Cathrin Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía <image001.png> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: • We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! • We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! • What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com<http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com<http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
I agree with you but the actual situation still takes 2 character for most countries based on the ISO standard. However ISO also provides a 3 character for countries which is usually used by Airlines or on your passport. For example a cctld has MU and then 3 characters becomes MUR or MRU whichever ii is. This is a thin line situation where we need to be careful about. So when it comes to GEO which one has a priority cctld or gnso who will decide. With the Problem we face in certain countries where individuals hold the 2 characters . I am guessing Government may well go and use the 3 character. I would perhaps suggest like a standing committee be the ones that takes all the so/ac to allocate or not else we may get into eternal fights for nothing.
On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:03, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no> wrote:
Hi all,
In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope.
I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters.
Best, Ann-Cathrin
Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen
Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal
UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim
Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo
Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no <mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Rosalia,
Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”?
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 Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear All,
As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN.
Best, Rosalía <image001.png>
On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote:
Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander
We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination.
cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered.
Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose.
And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs.
Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support.
That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist.
I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so.
Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
· We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
· We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”!
· What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com <http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com <http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen?
On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support!
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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues,
Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was:
"The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa...>
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
Hi Kris, I see your point about governments in certain countries and that they may want to use the 3 letter ISO code as a TLD, but no matter what we end up recommending in WT5, a 3 letter combination in ASCII should, in my opinion, always be a gTLD. This just in addition to the fact that the scope of WT 5 is limited to geographic names - no matter how many letters or characters it may be in what we end up defining as a “geographic name”. I look forward to the next part of our work in WT 5 and suggest that we start with the ABG 2012 definitions, (see Martins email of 8 January 18 that lists the wording of ABG 2.2.1.4 + 2.2.1.4.1 and 2.2.1.4.2) and go through each and every part of the existing definitions of geographic name. Then we would have a set of definitions and from thereon we can start discussing the requirements and conditions for future applications. best Ann-Cathrin On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:13, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with you but the actual situation still takes 2 character for most countries based on the ISO standard. However ISO also provides a 3 character for countries which is usually used by Airlines or on your passport. For example a cctld has MU and then 3 characters becomes MUR or MRU whichever ii is. This is a thin line situation where we need to be careful about. So when it comes to GEO which one has a priority cctld or gnso who will decide. With the Problem we face in certain countries where individuals hold the 2 characters . I am guessing Government may well go and use the 3 character. I would perhaps suggest like a standing committee be the ones that takes all the so/ac to allocate or not else we may get into eternal fights for nothing. On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:03, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no<mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no>> wrote: Hi all, In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope. I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters. Best, Ann-Cathrin Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía <image001.png> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: • We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! • We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! • What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com<http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com<http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
I totally agree with you on those lines. Facts. We will need to find the middle ground and work forward else we’ll be here 20 years forward.
On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:49, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no> wrote:
Hi Kris,
I see your point about governments in certain countries and that they may want to use the 3 letter ISO code as a TLD, but no matter what we end up recommending in WT5, a 3 letter combination in ASCII should, in my opinion, always be a gTLD. This just in addition to the fact that the scope of WT 5 is limited to geographic names - no matter how many letters or characters it may be in what we end up defining as a “geographic name”.
I look forward to the next part of our work in WT 5 and suggest that we start with the ABG 2012 definitions, (see Martins email of 8 January 18 that lists the wording of ABG 2.2.1.4 + 2.2.1.4.1 and 2.2.1.4.2) and go through each and every part of the existing definitions of geographic name. Then we would have a set of definitions and from thereon we can start discussing the requirements and conditions for future applications.
best Ann-Cathrin
On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:13, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote:
I agree with you but the actual situation still takes 2 character for most countries based on the ISO standard. However ISO also provides a 3 character for countries which is usually used by Airlines or on your passport.
For example a cctld has MU and then 3 characters becomes MUR or MRU whichever ii is. This is a thin line situation where we need to be careful about. So when it comes to GEO which one has a priority cctld or gnso who will decide. With the Problem we face in certain countries where individuals hold the 2 characters . I am guessing Government may well go and use the 3 character.
I would perhaps suggest like a standing committee be the ones that takes all the so/ac to allocate or not else we may get into eternal fights for nothing.
On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:03, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no <mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no>> wrote:
Hi all,
In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope.
I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters.
Best, Ann-Cathrin
Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen
Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal
UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim
Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo
Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no <mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Rosalia,
Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”?
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 Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear All,
As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN.
Best, Rosalía <image001.png>
On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote:
Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander
We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination.
cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered.
Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose.
And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs.
Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support.
That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist.
I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so.
Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
· We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
· We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”!
· What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com <http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com <http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen?
On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support!
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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues,
Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was:
"The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa...>
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <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 <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 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
+1 @Ann-Cathrin Javier Rúa-Jovet +1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua
On Jan 19, 2018, at 8:49 AM, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no> wrote:
Hi Kris,
I see your point about governments in certain countries and that they may want to use the 3 letter ISO code as a TLD, but no matter what we end up recommending in WT5, a 3 letter combination in ASCII should, in my opinion, always be a gTLD. This just in addition to the fact that the scope of WT 5 is limited to geographic names - no matter how many letters or characters it may be in what we end up defining as a “geographic name”.
I look forward to the next part of our work in WT 5 and suggest that we start with the ABG 2012 definitions, (see Martins email of 8 January 18 that lists the wording of ABG 2.2.1.4 + 2.2.1.4.1 and 2.2.1.4.2) and go through each and every part of the existing definitions of geographic name. Then we would have a set of definitions and from thereon we can start discussing the requirements and conditions for future applications.
best Ann-Cathrin
On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:13, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> wrote:
I agree with you but the actual situation still takes 2 character for most countries based on the ISO standard. However ISO also provides a 3 character for countries which is usually used by Airlines or on your passport.
For example a cctld has MU and then 3 characters becomes MUR or MRU whichever ii is. This is a thin line situation where we need to be careful about. So when it comes to GEO which one has a priority cctld or gnso who will decide. With the Problem we face in certain countries where individuals hold the 2 characters . I am guessing Government may well go and use the 3 character.
I would perhaps suggest like a standing committee be the ones that takes all the so/ac to allocate or not else we may get into eternal fights for nothing.
On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:03, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no> wrote:
Hi all,
In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope.
I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters.
Best, Ann-Cathrin
Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen
Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal
UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim
Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo
Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no
On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote:
Hi Rosalia,
Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”?
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear All,
As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN.
Best, Rosalía <image001.png>
On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote:
Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander
We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination.
cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered.
Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose.
And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs.
Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support.
That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist.
I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so.
Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
· We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
· We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”!
· What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com) or “.f1” (f1.com). How many would that be? A dozen?
On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support!
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues,
Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was:
"The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa...
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list 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 https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/
<KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Dear Liz, dear Ann-Cathrin, Valuable input! Totally agree with it! Our base is indeed -as pointed out by your contributions- the AGB 2012 as summarized by Martin: * 2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review o 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names o 2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support Not included in this summary is the two character provision, which is to be found in Module 2, 3.1., page 66 of 338: Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains 3.1 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two-character ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard. So in my eyes 3.1. is in so far relevant to WT5 and its scope as it clearly refers to country codes and thus creates an affiliation with geographical terms. To answer Lizs question: The current status quo per AGB 2012 allows for two character IDN applications, if these are NOT (optically) looking like a ASCII letter (see 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). Otherwise two character (ASCII) strings are invalid as application. So the current AGB would CLEARLY DENY a gTLD .f1 or .3m! We could now simply say: Our scope are only GEOGRAPHICAL terms! f1 isnt geographical hence we have no scope to elaborate about it we cant lift its ban in WT5. If want to lift that ban: it has to be done in another WT. Not in WT5. In that respect: should we add 3.1., in Module 2, page 66 of 338 to Martins summary and with that end the discussion about the 2 character namespace? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:49 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Hi Kris, I see your point about governments in certain countries and that they may want to use the 3 letter ISO code as a TLD, but no matter what we end up recommending in WT5, a 3 letter combination in ASCII should, in my opinion, always be a gTLD. This just in addition to the fact that the scope of WT 5 is limited to geographic names - no matter how many letters or characters it may be in what we end up defining as a geographic name. I look forward to the next part of our work in WT 5 and suggest that we start with the ABG 2012 definitions, (see Martins email of 8 January 18 that lists the wording of ABG 2.2.1.4 + 2.2.1.4.1 and 2.2.1.4.2) and go through each and every part of the existing definitions of geographic name. Then we would have a set of definitions and from thereon we can start discussing the requirements and conditions for future applications. best Ann-Cathrin On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:13, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> > wrote: I agree with you but the actual situation still takes 2 character for most countries based on the ISO standard. However ISO also provides a 3 character for countries which is usually used by Airlines or on your passport. For example a cctld has MU and then 3 characters becomes MUR or MRU whichever ii is. This is a thin line situation where we need to be careful about. So when it comes to GEO which one has a priority cctld or gnso who will decide. With the Problem we face in certain countries where individuals hold the 2 characters . I am guessing Government may well go and use the 3 character. I would perhaps suggest like a standing committee be the ones that takes all the so/ac to allocate or not else we may get into eternal fights for nothing. On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:03, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no <mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no> > wrote: Hi all, In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, arent geo terms and thus out of scope. I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters. Best, Ann-Cathrin Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no <mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> > wrote: Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD .f1 or .3m? 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 Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 < <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía <image001.png> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar < <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee> timo.vohmar@internet.ee> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan < <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com> gregshatanipc@gmail.com> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert < <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin> alexander@schubert.berlin> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: * We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible or the Bill of Rights! * We cant assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain 44.33.22.11 based on the gTLD .11! * What remains are number-letter combinations! Thats 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as .3m ( <http://3m.com/> 3m.com) or .f1 ( <http://f1.com/> f1.com). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is something different. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: NO WAY. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto: <mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org> gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-p aper-15jun17-en.pdf> https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa per-15jun17-en.pdf Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5> 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 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com <mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif>
Hi Alexander, I fully agree with you. The answer to your question: In that respect: should we add “3.1., in Module 2, page 66 of 338” to Martin’s summary and with that end the discussion about the 2 character namespace? is in my opinion clearly Yes. best, Ann-Cathrin On 19 Jan 2018, at 15:00, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Dear Liz, dear Ann-Cathrin, Valuable input! Totally agree with it! Our base is indeed -as pointed out by your contributions- the AGB 2012 as summarized by Martin: • 2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review o 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names o 2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support Not included in this summary is the two character provision, which is to be found in Module 2, 3.1., page 66 of 338: • Part III - Policy Requirements for Generic Top-Level Domains 3.1 Applied-for gTLD strings in ASCII must be composed of three or more visually distinct characters. Two-character ASCII strings are not permitted, to avoid conflicting with current and future country codes based on the ISO 3166-1 standard. So in my eyes 3.1. is in so far relevant to WT5 and its scope as it clearly refers to “country codes” – and thus creates an affiliation with “geographical terms”. To answer Liz’s question: The current status quo per AGB 2012 allows for two character IDN applications, if these are NOT (optically) looking like a ASCII letter (see 3.2.1 and 3.2.2). Otherwise two character (ASCII) strings are invalid as application. So the current AGB would CLEARLY DENY a gTLD .f1 or .3m! We could now simply say: Our scope are only GEOGRAPHICAL terms! “f1” isn’t geographical – hence we have no scope to elaborate about it – we can’t “lift” it’s ban in WT5. If want to lift that ban: it has to be done in another WT. Not in WT5. In that respect: should we add “3.1., in Module 2, page 66 of 338” to Martin’s summary and with that end the discussion about the 2 character namespace? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 2:49 PM To: Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Hi Kris, I see your point about governments in certain countries and that they may want to use the 3 letter ISO code as a TLD, but no matter what we end up recommending in WT5, a 3 letter combination in ASCII should, in my opinion, always be a gTLD. This just in addition to the fact that the scope of WT 5 is limited to geographic names - no matter how many letters or characters it may be in what we end up defining as a “geographic name”. I look forward to the next part of our work in WT 5 and suggest that we start with the ABG 2012 definitions, (see Martins email of 8 January 18 that lists the wording of ABG 2.2.1.4 + 2.2.1.4.1 and 2.2.1.4.2) and go through each and every part of the existing definitions of geographic name. Then we would have a set of definitions and from thereon we can start discussing the requirements and conditions for future applications. best Ann-Cathrin On 19 Jan 2018, at 13:13, Kris Seeburn <seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com>> wrote: I agree with you but the actual situation still takes 2 character for most countries based on the ISO standard. However ISO also provides a 3 character for countries which is usually used by Airlines or on your passport. For example a cctld has MU and then 3 characters becomes MUR or MRU whichever ii is. This is a thin line situation where we need to be careful about. So when it comes to GEO which one has a priority cctld or gnso who will decide. With the Problem we face in certain countries where individuals hold the 2 characters . I am guessing Government may well go and use the 3 character. I would perhaps suggest like a standing committee be the ones that takes all the so/ac to allocate or not else we may get into eternal fights for nothing. On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:03, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no<mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no>> wrote: Hi all, In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope. I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters. Best, Ann-Cathrin Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía <image001.png> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: • We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! • We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! • What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com<http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com<http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com<mailto:seeburn.k@gmail.com> * www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/<http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/> <KeepItOn_Social_animated.gif> _______________________________________________ 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
Hello everyone Ann-Cathrin has raised some interesting points which are all mixed together. 1. ASCII two letter combinations are currently used to define country codes which are commonly used geographic identifiers for ccTLD operators. It seems we all agree on that if I read the sentiment on the list correctly. And we would maintain the policy recommendation to use the ISO3166 lists to define what those two character combinations are. 2. Other combinations of 2 characters could easily be IDN scripts (for example using the two characters for Osaka) would be a 2 character geographic term and there are many other examples in many different scripts. We need to find consensus on how to treat two characters (IDNs) in the context of our work here. Should they be treated in the same way as ASCII characters? 3. And then the much more difficult proposition that a gTLD “should" be 3 characters or more. Of course, we already have examples where two character country codes (for example, .la, .co & .tv) are used generically to register names which have nothing to do with a geographic term or a country code. I would have to question the assumption that a gTLD of, say, F1, would be anything other than generic, not confusable with a country code but I do think we need clarification on this interesting point. 4. And then the most difficult line which is that “gTLDs need to be at least three characters”. This presumes that we continue with the two character ASCII limitation and that many potential new geographic identifiers (for short hand geo names) should be at least three characters…in ASCII and IDN? If we follow this logic it means that any new TLD that is a geographic identifier (and then it would be evaluated and implemented as such) could be both a geo name and a generic TLD (for registry agreement purposes with all the conditions that attach to that agreement). 5. And finally, do we put out of scope number/letter, letter/number and number/number combinations as they may not be geographic identifiers? That is a question which I think needs further examination quite broadly before we decide if, for the purposes of this group, if it is indeed out of scope. If it is, then what other work track is dealing with it because the issue is open. Best wishes. Liz On 19 Jan 2018, at 12:03 pm, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no<mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no>> wrote: Hi all, In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope. I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters. Best, Ann-Cathrin Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía <image001.png> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: • We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! • We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! • What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com<http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com<http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Totally in agreement.
On Jan 19, 2018, at 16:44, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au> wrote:
Hello everyone
Ann-Cathrin has raised some interesting points which are all mixed together.
1. ASCII two letter combinations are currently used to define country codes which are commonly used geographic identifiers for ccTLD operators. It seems we all agree on that if I read the sentiment on the list correctly. And we would maintain the policy recommendation to use the ISO3166 lists to define what those two character combinations are.
2. Other combinations of 2 characters could easily be IDN scripts (for example using the two characters for Osaka) would be a 2 character geographic term and there are many other examples in many different scripts. We need to find consensus on how to treat two characters (IDNs) in the context of our work here. Should they be treated in the same way as ASCII characters?
3. And then the much more difficult proposition that a gTLD “should" be 3 characters or more. Of course, we already have examples where two character country codes (for example, .la, .co & .tv) are used generically to register names which have nothing to do with a geographic term or a country code. I would have to question the assumption that a gTLD of, say, F1, would be anything other than generic, not confusable with a country code but I do think we need clarification on this interesting point.
4. And then the most difficult line which is that “gTLDs need to be at least three characters”. This presumes that we continue with the two character ASCII limitation and that many potential new geographic identifiers (for short hand geo names) should be at least three characters…in ASCII and IDN? If we follow this logic it means that any new TLD that is a geographic identifier (and then it would be evaluated and implemented as such) could be both a geo name and a generic TLD (for registry agreement purposes with all the conditions that attach to that agreement).
5. And finally, do we put out of scope number/letter, letter/number and number/number combinations as they may not be geographic identifiers? That is a question which I think needs further examination quite broadly before we decide if, for the purposes of this group, if it is indeed out of scope. If it is, then what other work track is dealing with it because the issue is open.
Best wishes.
Liz
On 19 Jan 2018, at 12:03 pm, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no <mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no>> wrote:
Hi all,
In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope.
I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters.
Best, Ann-Cathrin
Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen
Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal
UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim
Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo
Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no <mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote:
Hi Rosalia,
Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”?
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 Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear All,
As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN.
Best, Rosalía <image001.png>
On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee <mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote:
Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander
We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination.
cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered.
Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose.
And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs.
Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels.
Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry
On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com <mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support.
That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist.
I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so.
Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community.
Greg
On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin <mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic:
· We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights!
· We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”!
· What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com <http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com <http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen?
On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD.
If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order.
If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support!
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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org <mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes
Dear colleagues,
Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)-
The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was:
"The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)."
Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... <https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa...>
Kind regards,
Heather Forrest
_______________________________________________ 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 <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 <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 <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 <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
_______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5
Kris Seeburn seeburn.k@gmail.com www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/ <http://www.linkedin.com/in/kseeburn/>
Liz, To respond only to your last point, Work Track 2 is handling the issue of reserved names at the top level and second level generally. To the extent they are not “geographic names”, Work Track 2 is discussing and has some initial thoughts on those. With respect to single or 2 character IDNs, to the extent that they are not “geographic”, work track 4 is working on that issue. Work Track 4 I believe is coming to the conclusion that in general certain 1 character IDNs can be used as top level domains. But that is oversimplifying the conclusion. For more information on that go to Work Track 4. Jeffrey J. Neuman Senior Vice President |Valideus USA | Com Laude USA 1751 Pinnacle Drive, Suite 600 Mclean, VA 22102, United States E: jeff.neuman@valideus.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@valideus.com> or jeff.neuman@comlaude.com<mailto:jeff.neuman@comlaude.com> T: +1.703.635.7514 M: +1.202.549.5079 @Jintlaw From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Liz Williams Sent: Friday, January 19, 2018 7:44 AM To: Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no> Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Hello everyone Ann-Cathrin has raised some interesting points which are all mixed together. 1. ASCII two letter combinations are currently used to define country codes which are commonly used geographic identifiers for ccTLD operators. It seems we all agree on that if I read the sentiment on the list correctly. And we would maintain the policy recommendation to use the ISO3166 lists to define what those two character combinations are. 2. Other combinations of 2 characters could easily be IDN scripts (for example using the two characters for Osaka) would be a 2 character geographic term and there are many other examples in many different scripts. We need to find consensus on how to treat two characters (IDNs) in the context of our work here. Should they be treated in the same way as ASCII characters? 3. And then the much more difficult proposition that a gTLD “should" be 3 characters or more. Of course, we already have examples where two character country codes (for example, .la, .co & .tv) are used generically to register names which have nothing to do with a geographic term or a country code. I would have to question the assumption that a gTLD of, say, F1, would be anything other than generic, not confusable with a country code but I do think we need clarification on this interesting point. 4. And then the most difficult line which is that “gTLDs need to be at least three characters”. This presumes that we continue with the two character ASCII limitation and that many potential new geographic identifiers (for short hand geo names) should be at least three characters…in ASCII and IDN? If we follow this logic it means that any new TLD that is a geographic identifier (and then it would be evaluated and implemented as such) could be both a geo name and a generic TLD (for registry agreement purposes with all the conditions that attach to that agreement). 5. And finally, do we put out of scope number/letter, letter/number and number/number combinations as they may not be geographic identifiers? That is a question which I think needs further examination quite broadly before we decide if, for the purposes of this group, if it is indeed out of scope. If it is, then what other work track is dealing with it because the issue is open. Best wishes. Liz On 19 Jan 2018, at 12:03 pm, Ann-Cathrin Marcussen <ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no<mailto:ann-cathrin.marcussen@norid.no>> wrote: Hi all, In my opinion it is outside the scope of WT5 to judge anything else than geographic terms. In terms of 2 character (ie F1 and 3M etc) those, in my mind, aren’t geo terms and thus out of scope. I am also of the opinion that we should keep the system that the requirement is that a gTLD needs to be at least 3 characters. Best, Ann-Cathrin Best regards / Med vennlig hilsen Ann-Cathrin Marcussen Head of Legal UNINETT Norid AS 7465 Trondheim Oslokontor St Olavs Plass 2 0165 Oslo Mobil +47 920 14 282 acm@uninett.no<mailto:acm@uninett.no> On 18 Jan 2018, at 17:16, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: Hi Rosalia, Do you support to reserve only the 2 LETTER codes, or all ASCII two CHARACTER codes? E.g.: Would you be OK with a gTLD “.f1” or “.3m”? Thanks, Alexander From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Rosal?a Morales Sent: Thursday, January 18, 2018 5:47 PM Cc: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear All, As a member of the already closed CWG-UCTN, I support the consensus that the group came about regarding 2-letter TLDs: reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained. The effort and many years of discussion of the CWG-UCTN should serve as a great stepping sone for this working group to build on. Opening this for debate once again, will lead to lengthy discussions and we will be reinventing the wheel once again. I strongly recommend supporting reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs as concluded by CWG-UCTN. Best, Rosalía <image001.png> On Jan 18, 2018, at 8:43 AM, Timo Võhmar <timo.vohmar@internet.ee<mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee>> wrote: Some may know that I represent a bit different view on things than Alexander We do not need to do anything ie reserve anything to anyone and least of all does the rfc say anything about that. The RFC sets out closed list of what is generic tld and we know that has not been true for a long time. So what we have here in case of two letters is just an agreement between different communities saying that all two letter combinations are reserved for use under ccTLD policy. We also have renewed this agreement multiple times and there seems to be no strong demand in changing this. But at the same time that does not mean that ccTLD cannot be anything else than some two letter combination. cc in ccTLD stands for country code. Country code can mean any type of label, name, letter combination that represents some country. Unfortunately we do not have community wide agreement on how to treat 3-letter ISO country codes and country names. There is a demand to make these available for use under ccTLD policy as well as gTLD policy. This need to find a compromise seems to be one of the reasons we have gathered. Of course the question at hand is wider - anything that represents anything with geographical meaning. And we are here by invitation of gNSO with the new gTLD round in mind but I do believe that it is not possible to change the current status quo disregarding the interests of countries to protect and develop their identity. One way to separate generics from country codes is who runs the delegation and perhaps on what purpose. And I would once again like to argue that anyone outside our community has or even should have any notion about meaning of generic and country code TLDs in the ICANNs policy context. It's all about what the TLD stands for ie there are few people that associate .tv with Tuvalu nor do I see that there could be anything generic about .usa. So we are speaking here about how these TLDs are delegated, regulated and how much control does registry/government have on how to run the TLD. Noone in the real world will get confused when suddenly there are n letter TLDs given out under ccTLD nor 2 character TLDs under gTLD policy - these are just TLDs. Lets leave the emotional arguments aside and try to find better solution for geographic terms for the next gTLD round and see if we can find a way to lift the ban from country labels. Best Regards, Timo Võhmar Representing Estonian internet community, government and ccTLD .ee registry On Thu, Jan 18, 2018 at 8:12 AM, Greg Shatan <gregshatanipc@gmail.com<mailto:gregshatanipc@gmail.com>> wrote: I don't disagree with the idea that all two-letter combinations should be reserved for potential ccTLD use. I thought it was worth raising the question on our recent call so that we could actively test the status quo on this point. (Also, nobody was speaking up....) It appears that this concept retains broad support. That said, I would like to take Alexander's invitation to correct him if his statements are factually incorrect or illogical. Specifically, it is both factually incorrect and illogical to couch this in terms of "brands." There's absolutely no basis or evidence for the proposition that brands have a particular interest in or desire for two letter TLDs (or that other applicants have less or more interest or desire). Intentionally or not, using that scenario stirs up tensions and creates an adversarial atmosphere that could be quite counterproductive. There's no reason to invent a disagreement or rift that doesn't exist. I would therefore suggest that the LAST thing the ccNSO should do is ask themselves the question posed by Alexander above. There's no good reason to pose that question or to approach this issue in that way, and there are plenty of good reasons not to do so. Instead, we should approach this as one point on which we have broad support from all sectors, including many from the brand community. Greg On Wed, Jan 17, 2018 at 10:45 AM, Alexander Schubert <alexander@schubert.berlin<mailto:alexander@schubert.berlin>> wrote: I think the two character TLD question is rather simplistic: • We need to reserve ALL two letter combinations – RFP 1591 says so. Or we need to revise RFC 1591: GOOD LUCK with that one! Easier to revise the Bible – or the Bill of Rights! • We can’t assign two number combinations as they could be confused with IP addresses: Example 4th level domain “44.33.22.11” based on the gTLD “.11”! • What remains are number-letter combinations! That’s 2 times 10 numbers by 26 letters = 520 combinations. With almost NONE of them really desirable for anybody. The rare desirable ones would be likely BRANDS, such as “.3m” (3m.com<http://3m.com/>) or “.f1” (f1.com<http://f1.com/>). How many would that be? A dozen? On the other hand: Outside of the U.S. (96% of the world population is non-American) EVERYBODY knows that a two letter TLD is “something different”. And that is the one and only distinction the ccNSO world owns: they are the arbiters of the two character namespace on the top-level! Two-characters = ccTLD. Everything else = gTLD. If I were the ccNSO I would ask myself: Just so that a handful of brands COULD (and nobody knows IF they WOULD want) grab a two character number-letter gTLD: do we have to give up the old order? As ccNSO member and as GAC member I would clearly draw a line here and say: “NO WAY”. 2 characters is the namespace-characterization of the ccNSO (even when they only use two letter combinations). Outside of the U.S. it would very much confuse the Internet User if suddenly SOME 2-character were gTLDs – or 3-letter TLDs were ccTLDs. That would destroy the old order. If this is factual incorrect or illogical: please correct me. If you support this notion: please voice your support! 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 Heather Forrest Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2018 8:42 AM To: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org<mailto:Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Subject: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Dear colleagues, Following up on Jeff's reference at the end of the WT5 call ended just now to the conclusions of the Cross-Community WG on the Use of Country and Territory Names (CWG-UCTN)- The conclusion of the CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes, and the rationale for that conclusion, was: "The CWG recommends that the existing ICANN policy of reserving 2-letter codes for ccTLDs should be maintained, primarily on the basis of the reliance of this policy, consistent with RFC 1591, on a standard established and maintained independently of and external to ICANN and widely adopted in contexts outside of the DNS (ISO 3166-1)." Full report here: https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa... Kind regards, Heather Forrest _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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 _______________________________________________ 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
Not responding to anyone in particular, but a suggestion to all: We are still trying to agree on what ‘geographic terms’ are. As mentioned in the chat yesterday, I believe this is part of the scoping of the exercise and will help us later on to determine on which names we want to suggest policy. Discussing strings that are unlikely to be ever considered geographic names is a bit pointless. Engaging at this stage in a policy discussion seems premature (even though it is undoubtedly more interesting). The descriptions as used in the 2012 AGB (see Martin’s email dd 08/01 and as presented on the call yesterday) seem workable to me. Has anyone come up with a name that s/he considers to be a geographic name that does not fit? Kind Regards, Peter
Agree with Peter. Best regards, Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer@dotzon.consulting<mailto:ohlmer@dotzon.consulting> www.dotzon.consulting<http://www.dotzon.consulting> DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin Von: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] Im Auftrag von Peter Van Roste Gesendet: Donnerstag, 18. Januar 2018 17:19 An: Icann Gnso Newgtld Wg Wt5 <Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org> Betreff: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Conclusion of CWG-UCTN on 2-character codes Not responding to anyone in particular, but a suggestion to all: We are still trying to agree on what ‘geographic terms’ are. As mentioned in the chat yesterday, I believe this is part of the scoping of the exercise and will help us later on to determine on which names we want to suggest policy. Discussing strings that are unlikely to be ever considered geographic names is a bit pointless. Engaging at this stage in a policy discussion seems premature (even though it is undoubtedly more interesting). The descriptions as used in the 2012 AGB (see Martin’s email dd 08/01 and as presented on the call yesterday) seem workable to me. Has anyone come up with a name that s/he considers to be a geographic name that does not fit? Kind Regards, Peter
participants (12)
-
Alexander Schubert -
Ann-Cathrin Marcussen -
Greg Shatan -
Heather Forrest -
Javier Rua -
Jeff Neuman -
Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH -
Kris Seeburn -
Liz Williams -
Peter Van Roste -
Rosalía Morales -
Timo Võhmar