[ALAC] [GTLD-WG] Re "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace" Public comment

Sun Jul 13 03:17:57 UTC 2014

I am all for making a statement if there is a real user issue here.

I just don't see it.

If I say a domain of ca.com, I would not likely 
think that it is somehow related to Canada. In 
fact, when I played that mind exercise I 
immediately thought about a long-defunct computer 
company called Coumputer Automation Inc. au.org 
is a group called Americans United for Separation 
of Church and State. Who is going to confuse that with Australia.

Personally I would not object to the release of 
all 2-letter codes. BA.TRAVEL is going to mean 
British Airways to most users. Perhaps there are 
some that would take it as meaning Bosnia-and-Herzegovina.travel...

But remember, we are only talking about the two 
letter codes that are NOT used and currently have 
no meaning in relation to countries. If one day 
they are allocated, as someone pointed out, there 
is a good chance that the two letter code will 
not be instantly recognizable as standing for its 
new territorial owner. Is there really much likelihood of mass confusion?

If you can write up a credible statement about 
potential user confusion, I am all for it.

Alan

At 12/07/2014 09:31 PM, Holly Raiche wrote:
>Hi Alan
>
>I take your points.  And maybe it is too late to 
>protest, but  in making a statement, couldn’t we 
>note the impact on users.  And remember, GAC is 
>not there to represent users and since not all 
>countries are represented within the GAC 
>(particularly ones that do not exist, but may), 
>maybe we can’t expect them to mount the same arguments from a user perspective
>
>Holly
>On 11 Jul 2014, at 12:41 am, Alan Greenberg <alan.greenberg at mcgill.ca> wrote:
>
> > While not disagreeing with Dev's careful 
> analysis, I do have a comment and a question:
> >
> > - Similar requests have already been approved 
> for other TLDs. Refusing these could be seen as inequitable.
> > - If the GAC and governments are not opposing 
> such changes, is there really a user component 
> that implies that we should comment?
> >
> > Alan
> >
> > At 10/07/2014 03:08 AM, Olivier MJ Crepin-Leblond wrote:
> >> Thanks for this, Dev.
> >> You'll note that the Statement is currently marked "No Statement" but if
> >> there is interest and your comments gain traction, the ALAC could indeed
> >> make a Statement.
> >> Kindest regards,
> >>
> >> Olivier
> >>
> >> On 10/07/2014 08:06, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
> >> > Regarding the public comment on 
> "Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names
> >> > in the New gTLD Namespace" at https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg
> >> > which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at
> >> > https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg
> >> > for consideration:
> >> >
> >> > "Various registries for multiple gTLDs are applying for exceptions to
> >> > Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement
> >> > ("Specification 5") with some registries suggesting the release of 2
> >> > character ASCII labels not on the current 
> ISO 3166 standard would suffice.
> >> >
> >> > While this seems harmless, there is a possibility of new countries and
> >> > territories being created, and then allocated a new two character ASCII
> >> > label by ISO 3166/MA (see
> >> > 
> https://web.archive.org/web/20111101141651/http://www.iso.org/iso/country_codes/iso-3166-1_decoding_table.htm
> >> > ).
> >> >
> >> > Any new country or territory created after 
> 2014 would therefore not receive
> >> > the same protection as those in the 2014 ISO 3166-2 list and would find
> >> > that their new 2 character label is "given away", should they wish for
> >> > their 2 character ASCII label to be protected, as per Specification 5.
> >> >
> >> > Now, should the principle established by Specification 5 protecting 2
> >> > character ASCII labels even be in the New gTLD Registry Agreement? Many
> >> > would say, especially given the prevalence of two character labels in
> >> > existing TLDs like .com, .org and .net that this principle shouldn't be
> >> > applied to new gTLDs.
> >> > However, this (IMO) is a separate issue to 
> the question being asked for in
> >> > the public comment.
> >> >
> >> > If Specification 5 is meant to defend the 
> principle that country codes in
> >> > ISO 3166-2 should be protected in new 
> gTLDs, then it should be enforced to
> >> > ensure future countries and territories 
> with new 2 character ASCII labels
> >> > are protected in the same way as those 
> territories and countries in today's
> >> > ISO 3166-2 list.
> >> >
> >> > Therefore, the proposals by Donuts for 143 of its new gTLDS, .kred by
> >> > KredTLD Pty Ltd, .best by BestTLD Pty Ltd and .ceo by CEOTLD Pty Ltd.
> >> > should be turned down in keeping with the principle of Specification 5.
> >> >
> >> > The proposal by .wiki by Top Level Design 
> LLC which specifies that the two
> >> > character ASCII labels will only be used for languages identified by ISO
> >> > 639-1 does appear to meet the threshold 
> that the use will not be confused
> >> > with the corresponding country codes, as 
> per Specification 5 and could be
> >> > approved.
> >> >
> >> > Similarly, the proposal by .globo by Globo 
> Comunicação e Participações S.A
> >> > which proposed the use of two character 
> ASCII labels that are not letters
> >> > or by two characters where only one of the 
> character is a letter are labels
> >> > that would not be used by ISO 3166-2 and could be approved."
> >> >
> >> > Thoughts?
> >> >
> >> > Kind Regards,
> >> >
> >> > Dev Anand Teelucksingh
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > ALAC mailing list
> >> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> >
> >> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ALAC mailing list
> > ALAC at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >
> > At-Large Online: http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> > ALAC Working Wiki: 
> https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)