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

Sun Jul 13 17:38:14 UTC 2014

My rather consistent digit inversion has been 
pointed out to me. Sadly ISO numbers do not have 
built in check digits to identify such mangling. Please read 1366 as 3166.

Alan

At 13/07/2014 12:54 PM, Alan Greenberg wrote:
>A couple of points:
>
>- For this type of confusion to happen, the following would need to be true:
>     = The unused two-letter code would have to 
> be registered before ISO-1366 was updated to include the new territory
>     = the code was then included in 1366
>     = it would have to be sufficiently well-known to cause confusion
>   I think the coincidence of these is going to be pretty rare.
>
>- If an argument is going to make ICANN treat 
>these new TLD differently than a host of old 
>ones that have already been granted this 
>capability, I think it will need to be pretty compelling and not an edge case.
>
>- What ccTLDs do is completely out of our 
>control, and many are already allocating unused 
>1366 2nd level names (and some even used 1366 codes I think)
>
>BTW, I find this debate great. Too often someone 
>makes a statement and everyone agrees. I find it 
>healthy that we do not agree on everything!
>
>Alan
>
>At 13/07/2014 12:04 PM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh wrote:
>
>Well, end users might confuse the two character label at the 2nd level as a
>country or territory if third level domains were being offered under that
>2nd level.
>
>Using au.org from your example, a hypothetical domain like health.au.org
>could confuse users in thinking it represented a health authority from
>Australia.
>
>A company (I don't think its a accredited registrar) called Joynic (
><http://www.joynic.com>http://www.joynic.com) 
>offers third level domains under .vu (the ccTLD for
>Vanuatu):
>de.vu, at.vu, ch.vu, nl.vu, ca.vu, tr.vu, gr.vu, ru.vu, pl.vu, es.vu, za.vu
>
> >From 2005 to 2011, Joynic was offering third level domains under .tt (the
>ccTLD from Trinidad and Tobago) :
>us.tt, uk.tt, uk.tt, ca.tt, au.tt, eu.tt, fr.tt, es.tt, nl.tt, it.tt, be.tt,
>de.tt, at.tt, ch.tt
>
>See Wayback archive of Joynic's website from 2010 at
><https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/>https://web.archive.org/web/20100106020548/http://www.joynic.com/
>
>Dev Anand
>
>
>
>
>
>On Sat, Jul 12, 2014 at 11:17 PM, Alan Greenberg 
><<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>alan.greenberg 
>at mcgill.ca>
>wrote:
>
> > 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 
> <<https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>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>https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg
> >> >> > which ends July 10 2014, I've posted the following at
> >> >> > 
> <https://community.icann.org/x/VqzhAg>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.>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>https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> >> >
> >> >> > At-Large Online: 
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: 
> <https://community.icann.org/>https://community.icann.org/
> >> display/atlarge/At-Large+Advisory+Committee+(ALAC)
> >> >> >
> >> >
> >> > _______________________________________________
> >> > ALAC mailing list
> >> > 
> <https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg>ALAC 
> at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> >> > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac
> >> >
> >> > At-Large Online: 
> <http://www.atlarge.icann.org>http://www.atlarge.icann.org
> >> > ALAC Working Wiki: 
> <https://community.icann.org/>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)