Hi Liz, Thank you for your thoughtful response and suggestions which are welcomed and very much appreciated. Preparing a schematic to consider the impact of the resultant definitions does tie-in with the risk approach and we should look at ways to manage the work effectively with the resources available in WT5. Thank you for volunteering to progress this work and calling for there volunteers to help support this effort. The co-leaders are considering the approach you suggested and will revert as soon as possible. Kind regards, Martin Martin Sutton Executive Director Brand Registry Group martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org> On 9 Jan 2018, at 18:24, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello Martin Thanks for giving the WT5 members the chance to start re-thinking about definitions of geographic terms to be used as policy elements of any potential update to an Applicant Guidebook. One thing that concerns me is the ever expanding notions around what geographic terms may be as they relate to top level domains. This is not a catch all exercise of prohibition. We must be able to ground any review of the current definitions and then any amendments to those definitions in external and objective lists of names or rules around the use of geographic terms which is “steady state” and not subject to arbitrary interpretation and capricious change. That is why, for example, the use of ISO3166 lists are so helpful. And then I wanted to make another suggestion about additional work that might help us understand the implications of any definitions. It is an academic exercise without great practical value if we think about the definition of names in the abstract. I suggest that we put some effort into really understanding the impact of those definitions by doing some analysis of a) the 2012 application process; b) the lengthy evaluation process and c) the ongoing implementation of geographic terms so that we can see what happens in a real life. I am happy to put together that schematic, in tandem with anyone else who is interested and, perhaps, with the help of the WG staff. I think it is a similar process to your “risk” analysis” that you had proposed. Best wishes. Liz On 8 Jan 2018, at 10:11 pm, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Dear WT5 Members, One of the key areas identified during the WT5 TOR discussions related to the definition of geographic terms. This will be a priority focus for us as we begin the substantive work in WT5 and has been highlighted in recent exchanges on the PDP WG mailing list. Defining geographic terms for the purpose of top-level domains will help us to frame our overall work within WT5. To ensure that all WT5 members are working from the same set of assumptions, we would like to have discussions about the working definition of geographic names at our next meeting on 17 Jan and request input from members prior to the call. If you are not familiar with the history and context of how the GNSO policies and Applicant Guidebook evolved in relation to geographic terms, the final report of the Cross Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG-UCTN) provides a good background https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa.... The 2012 Applicant Guidebook states the following in relation to geographic terms: 2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the interests of governments or public authorities in geographic names. The requirements and procedure ICANN will follow in the evaluation process are described in the following paragraphs. Applicants should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name. 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names6 Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if: 1. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 2. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. 3. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. 4. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. 5. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. 6. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. 2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities: 1. An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 2. An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name. City names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique. Unlike other types of geographic names, there are no established lists that can be used as objective references in the evaluation process. Thus, city names are not universally protected. However, the process does provide a means for cities and applicants to work together where desired. An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: (a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents.7 1. An application for any string that is an exact match of a sub-national place name, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard. 2. An application for a string listed as a UNESCO region8 or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list.9 In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the lists above, documentation of support will be required from at least 60% of the respective national governments in the region, and there may be no more than one written statement of objection to the application from relevant governments in the region and/or public authorities associated with the continent or the region. Where the 60% rule is applied, and there are common regions on both lists, the regional composition contained in the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” takes precedence. An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4 listed above is considered to represent a geographic name. In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements. Strings that include but do not match a geographic name (as defined in this section) will not be considered geographic names as defined by section 2.2.1.4.2, and therefore will not require documentation of government support in the evaluation process. 6 Country and territory names are excluded from the process based on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent communiqués providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs to indicate that strings which are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the forthcoming ccPDP, and other geographic strings could be allowed in the gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public authority. 7 City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string. 8 See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/[unesco.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_unesco_worldwide_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=BFlNnYVG3cWU8E7WYL8IM3sAhljIgoJIlNXg7FOY0ZE&e=>. 9 See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm[unstats.un.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unstats.un.org_unsd_methods_m49_m49regin.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=OUphKkFDZowCxK0Owp9DX4kk3oafMaWuFbNFUpKV-CE&e=>. WT5 ACTION For a potential new applicant guidebook, we need a consensus driven common understanding of geographic identifiers to provide clarity to potential applicants. We would like to gather input from WT5 members, specifically whether the current definition is fit for purpose or not. If you think there should be changes, specify what these would be (additions, deletions) and the rationale for adding or removing any elements of the definition. Please submit your comments, ideally by 15 Jan, to provide an opportunity to discuss the input during our next call. To submit your comment, please use the following link to the document or submit via email specifying: 1. Contributor name 2. Addition/deletion/amendment to definition 3. Rationale to support the change This will then be added to the google doc which is available here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfr...) for those that may wish to populate the document directly. Please do not amend any other entries as this document will not track changes. We look forward to receiving your input. Kind regards WT5 Co-Leaders Annebeth Lange Christopher Wilkinson Martin Sutton Olga Cavalli _______________________________________________ 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

This is an interesting discussion, but I am getting confused now! I had thought that the first piece of work for WT5 is a discussion of the definition of what constitutes a geographic name for the purposes of new gTLDs – hence looking initially at the 2012 Applicant Guidebook collectively to see whether those are fit for purpose. The use of 3166 – the standard for codes for the representation of countries and their subdivisions – is not perfect but has historically always been used as reference going right back to RFC 1591 in 1994 “IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country”. Personally while I think use of 3166 produces some odd results I have not (yet) heard of a credible alternative as regards country names and the 2 and 3 letter codes which represent country names. If the definition of a geographic term is going to be extended beyond the 3166 standard – to include rivers and mountains etc or even the currency codes as Christopher suggests then that is a whole new discussion which analysis of the 2012 round will not help much with since those sorts of terms were not defined as geo names per those rules. I think we will be a bit better informed once we have seen the range of feedback on the existing rules as helpfully listed by Martin below. Best wishes Nick PS Christopher whilst Scotland does not have its own 3166-1 codes, it is recognised and protected as a geographic term as a country subdivision of the UK on the 3166-2 list with the code GB-SCT and the hypothetical use of the name ‘Scotland’ as a new generic TLD would require suitable governmental approval / non-objection under 2.2.1.4.2 (3) From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of lists@christopherwilkinson.eu Sent: 10 January 2018 19:09 To: Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au>; Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org> Cc: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms Dear Liz, Dear Martin: A few comments meanwhile: 1. ISO 3166 is very useful as far as it goes, but it has its own intrinsic biases and lacunae. For instance, ISO 3166 privileges entities that are islands (‘territories’) whereas very many, more important, geographical regions are not recognised. To take a local example: The Isle of Man has its own 3166 code, but the whole of Scotland does not! 2. I think that we should make it quite clear that whatever the final definition of Geo-Names becomes, those Geographical terms that are not included are excluded from Delegation. Also, personally, I have not taken on board the idea that if there is no agreement on a new definition, it is the 2012 AGB that prevails. I think that is politically unrealistic. If there is no agreement on a new definition, I would rather expect the whole new round to be deferred until we do. 3. I strongly support Liz’ proposal to analyse the outcome of the 2012 round for Geo-Names. In the past 24 hours staff have released a lot of new data that I had not seen before. I may revert to that matter when I have had time to review what we have now got. Martin has already requested that all that information be posted to the WT5 wiki. Thankyou. Regards CW On 9 Jan 2018, at 19:24, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello Martin Thanks for giving the WT5 members the chance to start re-thinking about definitions of geographic terms to be used as policy elements of any potential update to an Applicant Guidebook. One thing that concerns me is the ever expanding notions around what geographic terms may be as they relate to top level domains. This is not a catch all exercise of prohibition. We must be able to ground any review of the current definitions and then any amendments to those definitions in external and objective lists of names or rules around the use of geographic terms which is “steady state” and not subject to arbitrary interpretation and capricious change. That is why, for example, the use of ISO3166 lists are so helpful. And then I wanted to make another suggestion about additional work that might help us understand the implications of any definitions. It is an academic exercise without great practical value if we think about the definition of names in the abstract. I suggest that we put some effort into really understanding the impact of those definitions by doing some analysis of a) the 2012 application process; b) the lengthy evaluation process and c) the ongoing implementation of geographic terms so that we can see what happens in a real life. I am happy to put together that schematic, in tandem with anyone else who is interested and, perhaps, with the help of the WG staff. I think it is a similar process to your “risk” analysis” that you had proposed. Best wishes. Liz On 8 Jan 2018, at 10:11 pm, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Dear WT5 Members, One of the key areas identified during the WT5 TOR discussions related to the definition of geographic terms. This will be a priority focus for us as we begin the substantive work in WT5 and has been highlighted in recent exchanges on the PDP WG mailing list. Defining geographic terms for the purpose of top-level domains will help us to frame our overall work within WT5. To ensure that all WT5 members are working from the same set of assumptions, we would like to have discussions about the working definition of geographic names at our next meeting on 17 Jan and request input from members prior to the call. If you are not familiar with the history and context of how the GNSO policies and Applicant Guidebook evolved in relation to geographic terms, the final report of the Cross Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG-UCTN) provides a good background https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa.... The 2012 Applicant Guidebook states the following in relation to geographic terms: 2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the interests of governments or public authorities in geographic names. The requirements and procedure ICANN will follow in the evaluation process are described in the following paragraphs. Applicants should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name. 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names6 Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if: 1. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 2. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. 3. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. 4. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. 5. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. 6. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. 2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities: 1. An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 2. An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name. City names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique. Unlike other types of geographic names, there are no established lists that can be used as objective references in the evaluation process. Thus, city names are not universally protected. However, the process does provide a means for cities and applicants to work together where desired. An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: (a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents.7 1. An application for any string that is an exact match of a sub-national place name, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard. 2. An application for a string listed as a UNESCO region8 or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list.9 In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the lists above, documentation of support will be required from at least 60% of the respective national governments in the region, and there may be no more than one written statement of objection to the application from relevant governments in the region and/or public authorities associated with the continent or the region. Where the 60% rule is applied, and there are common regions on both lists, the regional composition contained in the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” takes precedence. An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4 listed above is considered to represent a geographic name. In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements. Strings that include but do not match a geographic name (as defined in this section) will not be considered geographic names as defined by section 2.2.1.4.2, and therefore will not require documentation of government support in the evaluation process. 6 Country and territory names are excluded from the process based on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent communiqués providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs to indicate that strings which are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the forthcoming ccPDP, and other geographic strings could be allowed in the gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public authority. 7 City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string. 8 See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/[unesco.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_unesco_worldwide_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=BFlNnYVG3cWU8E7WYL8IM3sAhljIgoJIlNXg7FOY0ZE&e=>. 9 See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm[unstats.un.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unstats.un.org_unsd_methods_m49_m49regin.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=OUphKkFDZowCxK0Owp9DX4kk3oafMaWuFbNFUpKV-CE&e=>. WT5 ACTION For a potential new applicant guidebook, we need a consensus driven common understanding of geographic identifiers to provide clarity to potential applicants. We would like to gather input from WT5 members, specifically whether the current definition is fit for purpose or not. If you think there should be changes, specify what these would be (additions, deletions) and the rationale for adding or removing any elements of the definition. Please submit your comments, ideally by 15 Jan, to provide an opportunity to discuss the input during our next call. To submit your comment, please use the following link to the document or submit via email specifying: 1. Contributor name 2. Addition/deletion/amendment to definition 3. Rationale to support the change This will then be added to the google doc which is available here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfr...) for those that may wish to populate the document directly. Please do not amend any other entries as this document will not track changes. We look forward to receiving your input. Kind regards WT5 Co-Leaders Annebeth Lange Christopher Wilkinson Martin Sutton Olga Cavalli _______________________________________________ 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

Nick,

Did not know or remember that interesting fact about Scotland (GB-SCT) under 3166-2. Seeing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2 which reports that ISO-2 list, I just realized that it indirectly differentiates between independent countries and non-sovereign territories that possess 3166-1 country codes: those with subdivisions are independent countries and those without are not. Thanks a lot!

Note that Wikipedia is not a normative source for ISO information. Apart from that, the conclusion you make about the difference between ISO 3166 Part 1 and Part 2 is incorrect. Part 2 defines subdivisions codes and given that, none of them are independent. These codes have the form AA-XXXX. The AA part is the alpha-2 code defined in Part 1. It doesn't say anything about the dependency status of those subdivisions. In Part 1, there is an indicator whether it the code is assigned to an Independent country or not. Also note Part 2 only has subdivisions from Codes in Part 1. If one want to know what ISO 3166 actually says, it is best to go to the source directly. You can browse the ISO database using <https://www.iso.org/obp>. In the search box, select the country button and type in the query. Then you can click on the results and see the glory details. For Scotland one gets something like <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:code:3166:GB>. Note the "Yes" in the dependency status of GB. Hope this helps, Regards, jaap

welll when am looking at it….we have yet to properly instate the charter we are jumping the gun all the time. This makes situation more complicated and time consuming. i agree the ISO definition comes in. In which case just take the iso three words already the list is there. But how about a safeguard councilor committee that overlooks these because going through the icann procedures can sometimes take too long. Business model or not. It opens and protects the ISO and the IP clearing house. These will be the first cross reference anyway. But we need to move we cannot spend time to go 2 steps and 3 steps back.

On Jan 12, 2018, at 16:59, Javier Rua <javrua@gmail.com> wrote:

Note: I stand corrected! ISO 3166 and 3166-2 are about codes and codes only and In themselves really provide no additional information about the “sovereignty status” or “dependency status” of the pertinent geography.

Jaap has graciously pointed out to me cases of dependent territories, for example, the case of Wallis and Futuna which beside their ISO 3166 code (WF), these island-dependencies (overseas collectivities of France) also hold several ISO 3166-2 administrative subdivision codes WF-AL (Alo); WF-SG (Sigave) and WF-UV (Uvea). https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:code:3166:WF <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:code:3166:WF>

(Therefore that a certain jurisdiction holds ISO-3166-2 coded subdivisions says nothing about that jurisdiction’s political status in regards ultimate sovereignty).

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511 twitter: @javrua skype: javier.rua1 https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua <https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua>

On Jan 11, 2018, at 11:05 AM, Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl <mailto:jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>> wrote:

...

...

Nick,

Did not know or remember that interesting fact about Scotland (GB-SCT) under 3166-2. Seeing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2 <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2> which reports that ISO-2 list, I just realized that it indirectly differentiates between independent countries and non-sovereign territories that possess 3166-1 country codes: those with subdivisions are independent countries and those without are not. Thanks a lot!

Note that Wikipedia is not a normative source for ISO information. Apart from that, the conclusion you make about the difference between ISO 3166 Part 1 and Part 2 is incorrect.

Part 2 defines subdivisions codes and given that, none of them are independent. These codes have the form AA-XXXX. The AA part is the alpha-2 code defined in Part 1. It doesn't say anything about the dependency status of those subdivisions. In Part 1, there is an indicator whether it the code is assigned to an Independent country or not. Also note Part 2 only has subdivisions from Codes in Part 1.

If one want to know what ISO 3166 actually says, it is best to go to the source directly. You can browse the ISO database using <https://www.iso.org/obp <https://www.iso.org/obp>>. In the search box, select the country button and type in the query. Then you can click on the results and see the glory details. For Scotland one gets something like <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:code:3166:GB <https://www.iso.org/obp/ui#iso:code:3166:GB>>. Note the "Yes" in the dependency status of GB.

Hope this helps, Regards,

jaap _______________________________________________ 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 Jaap I know that it's really important to be precise in terminology, and that (to quote the ISO website) "the purpose of ISO 3166 is to define internationally recognised codes of letters and/or numbers that we can use when we refer to countries and subdivisions". The definition of country names comes from the United Nations Statistics Division, according to the ISO website (the Terminology Bulletin Country Names and the Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use to be precise) . RFC 1591 states that "the selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list". Is it fair to say then that whilst 3166 obviously does not define country names that it is nonetheless a convenient reference point for what the UN Statistics Division considers to be a country name? Is there any other way this could be easily done without reference to the 3166? Or do we simply rely on the wording in AGB 2.2.1.4.1 (iiv) "it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization". I have no principled objection to moving away from 3166 if there is a better benchmark that could be used, but its long-standing use as an objective standard has at least given the community some certainty in this area. Best wishes Nick -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis Sent: 11 January 2018 12:38 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms Nick Wenban-Smith writes:

I had thought that the first piece of work for WT5 is a discussion of > the definition of what constitutes a geographic name for the purposes > of new gTLDs - hence looking initially at the 2012 Applicant Guidebook > collectively to see whether those are fit for purpose. The use of 3166 > - the standard for codes for the representation of countries and their > subdivisions - is not perfect but has historically always been used as > reference going right back to RFC 1591 in 1994 "IANA is not in the > business of deciding what is and what is not a country".

Personally while I think use of 3166 produces some odd results I have > not (yet) heard of a credible alternative as regards country names and > the 2 and 3 letter codes which represent country names.

The ISO 3166 standard is not about country names at all. It does not defines the names of countries. It is all about codes. What RFC 1591 refers to is the use of codes as labels for TLDs. When the standard is using names and takes the UN Terminology database [1] as reference for those names. It is a bad idea to use 3166 as a reference source for geographic names. jaap [1] <https://unterm.un.org/UNTERM/portal/welcome> _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Thanks Japp for that reply. We appreciate your expertise to guide us in this area! I was just taking the source of country names from the ISO website "[ISO3166] does not define the names of countries - this information comes from United Nations sources (Terminology Bulletin Country Names and the Country and Region Codes for Statistical Use maintained by the United Nations Statistics Divisions)". Are these sources publicly available (e.g. to prospective applicants for a new gTLD) or in practice is use of the 3166 standard as a short cut to the official names of countries recognised by the UN the best we can do (realising its limitations and that it won't always be in sync)? I can see that from a purist's point of view it is perhaps inelegant, but is there a plausible alternative? Best wishes Nick -----Original Message----- From: Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 [mailto:gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Jaap Akkerhuis Sent: 12 January 2018 12:59 To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Action for WT5 Members - Definition of Geographic Terms Nick Wenban-Smith writes:

SNIP>

Is it fair to say then that whilst 3166 obviously does not define > country names that it is nonetheless a convenient reference point > for what the UN Statistics Division considers to be a country name?

The 3166/MA follows the UN terminology database, not the UN Statistics Division. Normally the 3166 MA is notified by the UN when a country changes its name which starts a process in ISO to adapt the standard. That takes some time so the they listings are not always in sync (as is now the case with the State of Libya). One can use the ISO 3166 standard as a short cut, but should realize the limitations and scope of the standard. Not all information is in the standard is normative. As an example, as far as I know the IANA/PTI IDN fast track program uses ISO 3166 only to determine whether a country/territory is eligible for the getting a ccTLD IDN. It does not use the listed name as authoritative.

Is there any other way this could be easily done without reference > to the 3166? Or do we simply rely on the wording in AGB 2.2.1.4.1 > (iiv) "it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as > demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that > name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization".

I have no principled objection to moving away from 3166 if there > is a better benchmark that could be used, but its long-standing > use as an objective standard has at least given the community some > certainty in this area.

I'm pretty agnostic about what to do. What I do see is that there are all the time ISO 3166 and other standards are referenced for things that are completely out of scope. Regards, jaap _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5

Hello Christopher Thanks for your note and you’ve highlighted the very reason why ICANN does not get involved in determining who has what rights where…the link to the previous working group’s spells that out in detail and explains both the limitations and the utility of ISO-like lists. It is not for this group to try to reinvent that particular wheel. As to your point about agreement on definitions…it was very clear in the last iteration that there was not unanimity. That didn’t prevent the round from going ahead and I would expect that to be the basis of policy recommendations that the Board eventually considers and then makes a decision one way or another. And then your point about “inclusion and exclusion”. It is impossible, and it should be impossible, for us or the GNSO or ICANN to come up with what is “allowed”. That means we have to predict future innovative ideas about which we have no robust clue. What we should do is make policy considerations that enable application rules to be devised against which clever applicants make plans for new top level domains. It puts, again, the burden in the evaluation process on applying those policies and the rules fairly and reasonably, with no thought to limit the way in which applicants could see opportunity to represent their community or their language or region or territory, in whatever script they feel most meets their needs. I am looking forward to reading all the new work that has just been released. Liz On 10 Jan 2018, at 7:09 pm, lists@christopherwilkinson.eu<mailto:lists@christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Dear Liz, Dear Martin: A few comments meanwhile: 1. ISO 3166 is very useful as far as it goes, but it has its own intrinsic biases and lacunae. For instance, ISO 3166 privileges entities that are islands (‘territories’) whereas very many, more important, geographical regions are not recognised. To take a local example: The Isle of Man has its own 3166 code, but the whole of Scotland does not! 2. I think that we should make it quite clear that whatever the final definition of Geo-Names becomes, those Geographical terms that are not included are excluded from Delegation. Also, personally, I have not taken on board the idea that if there is no agreement on a new definition, it is the 2012 AGB that prevails. I think that is politically unrealistic. If there is no agreement on a new definition, I would rather expect the whole new round to be deferred until we do. 3. I strongly support Liz’ proposal to analyse the outcome of the 2012 round for Geo-Names. In the past 24 hours staff have released a lot of new data that I had not seen before. I may revert to that matter when I have had time to review what we have now got. Martin has already requested that all that information be posted to the WT5 wiki. Thankyou. Regards CW On 9 Jan 2018, at 19:24, Liz Williams <liz.williams@auda.org.au<mailto:liz.williams@auda.org.au>> wrote: Hello Martin Thanks for giving the WT5 members the chance to start re-thinking about definitions of geographic terms to be used as policy elements of any potential update to an Applicant Guidebook. One thing that concerns me is the ever expanding notions around what geographic terms may be as they relate to top level domains. This is not a catch all exercise of prohibition. We must be able to ground any review of the current definitions and then any amendments to those definitions in external and objective lists of names or rules around the use of geographic terms which is “steady state” and not subject to arbitrary interpretation and capricious change. That is why, for example, the use of ISO3166 lists are so helpful. And then I wanted to make another suggestion about additional work that might help us understand the implications of any definitions. It is an academic exercise without great practical value if we think about the definition of names in the abstract. I suggest that we put some effort into really understanding the impact of those definitions by doing some analysis of a) the 2012 application process; b) the lengthy evaluation process and c) the ongoing implementation of geographic terms so that we can see what happens in a real life. I am happy to put together that schematic, in tandem with anyone else who is interested and, perhaps, with the help of the WG staff. I think it is a similar process to your “risk” analysis” that you had proposed. Best wishes. Liz On 8 Jan 2018, at 10:11 pm, Martin Sutton <martin@brandregistrygroup.org<mailto:martin@brandregistrygroup.org>> wrote: Dear WT5 Members, One of the key areas identified during the WT5 TOR discussions related to the definition of geographic terms. This will be a priority focus for us as we begin the substantive work in WT5 and has been highlighted in recent exchanges on the PDP WG mailing list. Defining geographic terms for the purpose of top-level domains will help us to frame our overall work within WT5. To ensure that all WT5 members are working from the same set of assumptions, we would like to have discussions about the working definition of geographic names at our next meeting on 17 Jan and request input from members prior to the call. If you are not familiar with the history and context of how the GNSO policies and Applicant Guidebook evolved in relation to geographic terms, the final report of the Cross Community Working Group Framework for the Use of Country and Territory Names as TLDs (CCWG-UCTN) provides a good background https://ccnso.icann.org/sites/default/files/field-attached/ccwg-ctn-final-pa.... The 2012 Applicant Guidebook states the following in relation to geographic terms: 2.2.1.4 Geographic Names Review Applications for gTLD strings must ensure that appropriate consideration is given to the interests of governments or public authorities in geographic names. The requirements and procedure ICANN will follow in the evaluation process are described in the following paragraphs. Applicants should review these requirements even if they do not believe their intended gTLD string is a geographic name. All applied-for gTLD strings will be reviewed according to the requirements in this section, regardless of whether the application indicates it is for a geographic name. 2.2.1.4.1 Treatment of Country or Territory Names6 Applications for strings that are country or territory names will not be approved, as they are not available under the New gTLD Program in this application round. A string shall be considered to be a country or territory name if: 1. it is an alpha-3 code listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 2. it is a long-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the long-form name in any language. 3. it is a short-form name listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard, or a translation of the short-form name in any language. 4. it is the short- or long-form name association with a code that has been designated as “exceptionally reserved” by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency. 5. it is a separable component of a country name designated on the “Separable Country Names List,” or is a translation of a name appearing on the list, in any language. See the Annex at the end of this module. 6. it is a permutation or transposition of any of the names included in items (i) through (v). Permutations include removal of spaces, insertion of punctuation, and addition or removal of grammatical articles like “the.” A transposition is considered a change in the sequence of the long or short–form name, for example, “RepublicCzech” or “IslandsCayman.” vii. it is a name by which a country is commonly known, as demonstrated by evidence that the country is recognized by that name by an intergovernmental or treaty organization. 2.2.1.4.2 Geographic Names Requiring Government Support The following types of applied-for strings are considered geographic names and must be accompanied by documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities: 1. An application for any string that is a representation, in any language, of the capital city name of any country or territory listed in the ISO 3166-1 standard. 2. An application for a city name, where the applicant declares that it intends to use the gTLD for purposes associated with the city name. City names present challenges because city names may also be generic terms or brand names, and in many cases city names are not unique. Unlike other types of geographic names, there are no established lists that can be used as objective references in the evaluation process. Thus, city names are not universally protected. However, the process does provide a means for cities and applicants to work together where desired. An application for a city name will be subject to the geographic names requirements (i.e., will require documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant governments or public authorities) if: (a) It is clear from applicant statements within the application that the applicant will use the TLD primarily for purposes associated with the city name; and (b) The applied-for string is a city name as listed on official city documents.7 1. An application for any string that is an exact match of a sub-national place name, such as a county, province, or state, listed in the ISO 3166-2 standard. 2. An application for a string listed as a UNESCO region8 or appearing on the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” list.9 In the case of an application for a string appearing on either of the lists above, documentation of support will be required from at least 60% of the respective national governments in the region, and there may be no more than one written statement of objection to the application from relevant governments in the region and/or public authorities associated with the continent or the region. Where the 60% rule is applied, and there are common regions on both lists, the regional composition contained in the “Composition of macro geographical (continental) regions, geographical sub-regions, and selected economic and other groupings” takes precedence. An applied-for gTLD string that falls into any of 1 through 4 listed above is considered to represent a geographic name. In the event of any doubt, it is in the applicant’s interest to consult with relevant governments and public authorities and enlist their support or non-objection prior to submission of the application, in order to preclude possible objections and pre-address any ambiguities concerning the string and applicable requirements. Strings that include but do not match a geographic name (as defined in this section) will not be considered geographic names as defined by section 2.2.1.4.2, and therefore will not require documentation of government support in the evaluation process. 6 Country and territory names are excluded from the process based on advice from the Governmental Advisory Committee in recent communiqués providing interpretation of Principle 2.2 of the GAC Principles regarding New gTLDs to indicate that strings which are a meaningful representation or abbreviation of a country or territory name should be handled through the forthcoming ccPDP, and other geographic strings could be allowed in the gTLD space if in agreement with the relevant government or public authority. 7 City governments with concerns about strings that are duplicates, nicknames or close renderings of a city name should not rely on the evaluation process as the primary means of protecting their interests in a string. Rather, a government may elect to file a formal objection to an application that is opposed by the relevant community, or may submit its own application for the string. 8 See http://www.unesco.org/new/en/unesco/worldwide/[unesco.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.unesco.org_new_en_unesco_worldwide_&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=BFlNnYVG3cWU8E7WYL8IM3sAhljIgoJIlNXg7FOY0ZE&e=>. 9 See http://unstats.un.org/unsd/methods/m49/m49regin.htm[unstats.un.org]<https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__unstats.un.org_unsd_methods_m49_m49regin.htm&d=DwMGaQ&c=FmY1u3PJp6wrcrwll3mSVzgfkbPSS6sJms7xcl4I5cM&r=UAy6fqdE7uFkRCc7uzN4yui8bwTtqofadZHiQEIO1vw&m=xkyKkaMrpFHC2Y7bYkg2dZgFxuTEPoPOyK6Gp8VdOjo&s=OUphKkFDZowCxK0Owp9DX4kk3oafMaWuFbNFUpKV-CE&e=>. WT5 ACTION For a potential new applicant guidebook, we need a consensus driven common understanding of geographic identifiers to provide clarity to potential applicants. We would like to gather input from WT5 members, specifically whether the current definition is fit for purpose or not. If you think there should be changes, specify what these would be (additions, deletions) and the rationale for adding or removing any elements of the definition. Please submit your comments, ideally by 15 Jan, to provide an opportunity to discuss the input during our next call. To submit your comment, please use the following link to the document or submit via email specifying: 1. Contributor name 2. Addition/deletion/amendment to definition 3. Rationale to support the change This will then be added to the google doc which is available here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1ooKmb576MQJvpHyDYOlJE3M2-Ssnv-SSgVfr...) for those that may wish to populate the document directly. Please do not amend any other entries as this document will not track changes. We look forward to receiving your input. Kind regards WT5 Co-Leaders Annebeth Lange Christopher Wilkinson Martin Sutton Olga Cavalli _______________________________________________ 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