[At-Large] At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains

Thu Oct 1 11:46:15 UTC 2015

Interesting conversation. Some thoughts which I posted at
https://community.icann.org/x/VIxYAw

1) No to "should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as
ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs?"

Given the presence of many 3 character TLDs as gTLDs, it doesn't seem
prudent to reserve all future 3 character TLDs for ccTLDs, given the
confusion as to which 3 characters would be a ccTLD and which is a
TLD.

An advantage to such a policy would be for ccTLDs to have 3 character
ccTLDs that may be marketed as complimentary to two character ccTLDs.
ccTLD operators will get such TLDs at low cost compared to applying
(and paying for) such 3 characters as a gTLD. If the principle of
ccTLDs being able to secure the ISO 3166 alpha-3 codes is applied,
reserving all 3 characters as ccTLDs would allow for future changes to
the ISO 3166 alpha-3 to reflect changes to countries and territories
being designated with new codes.

The disadvantage of such a policy is that it blocks any future three
character TLDs for use as possible gTLDs. With many 3 character TLDs
already delegated as gTLDs, there is the risk of end user confusion as
to what policies would apply to TLD - gTLD registries have contracts
with ICANN which stipulates certain conditions that must be met (RAA,
WHOIS, PICs, etc) and ICANN enforces such policies via contractual
compliance. ccTLDs don't have any such contracts with ICANN and can
implement any policy as the ccTLD administrator wants.

2) No to "In future, should all three-character top-level domains be
eligible for use as gTLDs as long as they are not in conflict with the
existing alpha-3 codes from the ISO 3166-1 list; i.e. the
three-character version of the same ISO list that is the basis for
current ccTLD allocation?"

The problem with such a policy is that the ISO 3166 alpha-3 (and
alpha-2 for that matter) codes are not static documents, they are
updated to reflect changes to countries and territories. So there is a
risk that a new country or territory can be allocated a new 3 letter
code that would be taken by a gTLD. This would give rise to newer
countries and territories being treated differently than the present
existing countries with a new country or territory "locked out" of use
of their 3 character code whilst older counties having use of their 3
character code.

3) Yes with caveats, to "In future, should three-character strings be
eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing
alpha-3 codes form the ISO 3166-1 list and they have received
documentation of support or non-objection from the relevant government
or public authority? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of
such a policy?

This question appears poorly worded. If a three-character string
doesn't exist in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 list, there is no relevant
government or authority that has any claim to those three characters.
If the question is asking "In future, should three-character strings
be eligible for use as gTLDs if they are not in conflict with existing
alpha-3 codes OR if in conflict with existing alpha-3 codes, such gTLD
applications must receive support or non-objection from the relevant
government or public authority", then the answer is Yes.

If there are governments or public authorities that feel they are
better recognized or identified by the three character code in the ISO
3166-1 alpha-3, such entries could file objections via their GAC
representatives on community or limited public interest grounds or
convince the GAC to issue consensus advice against such a gTLD
application. Having support and non-objection in hand from the
relevant government/public authority would be prudent.

4) No to ""In future, should there be unrestricted use of
three-character strings as gTLDs if they are not conflicting with any
applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage or
disadvantage of such a policy?"

Since some governments or public authorities may feel very strongly
that feel they are better recognized or identified by the three
character code in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-3, unrestricted use can result
in objection challenges by Governments (via GAC consensus advice or
filing an objection on community or limited public interest grounds).
To facilitate consensus in ICANN's multistakeholder community, it
seems prudent to not have unrestricted use of three-character strings.

5) No to "In future, should all IDN three-character strings be
reserved exclusively as ccTLDs and be ineligible as IDN gTLDs? What
would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?"

The ISO 3166-1 alpha3 list doesn't use IDN characters and its not
clear if there exists an definitive list of 3 character IDN strings
that could be used to represent countries and territories. Blocking
all 3 IDN characters can likely delay the expansion of IDNs gTLDs. If
there are 3 character IDN strings that represent a geographic name
(the name of a country or territory, permutations thereof and state
names as in the current Applicant Guidebook) then such strings should
be rejected as per the Applicant Guidebook. However, I would support
any guidance from the At-Large IDN WG

6) Yes to "In future, should there be unrestricted use of IDN
three-character strings if they are not in conflict with existing TLDs
or any applicable string similarity rules? What would be the advantage
or disadvantage of such a policy?""

I'm not seeing any strong disadvantages to say no to this, however, I
would support any guidance from the At-Large IDN WG

Kind Regards,

Dev Anand Teelucksingh

On Thu, Sep 24, 2015 at 2:08 PM, Jahangir Hossain <jrjahangir at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear Maureen,
> My personal observation, 3-latter should be reserved for ccTLD or IDN ccTLDs
> .
> It's makes more strengthen of ccTLDs operators or legal authority of country
> operators representation in ICANN platform which very important in future.
>
> Regards/ Jahangir
>
> On Sep 22, 2015 1:10 PM, "Maureen Hilyard" <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Dear At-Large members
>>
>>
>>
>> Country codes are traditionally a 2-letter string. The new gTLD process is
>> enabling country and territory codes to be expanded to 3-letters (or even as
>> whole names).
>>
>>
>>
>> The “Cross Community Working Group for the Use of Country and Territory
>> Names as Top Level Domains” is asking:
>>
>>
>>
>> 1. Should these new 3-letter country/territory codes be reserved ONLY as
>> ccTLDs OR should they be open to everyone as gTLDs?  (This question refers
>> to 3-letter code IDN ccTLDs and IDN gTLDs as well)
>>
>>
>>
>> 2. What advantages or disadvantages does your answer offer either group
>> (ccTLDs or gTLDs)?
>>
>>
>>
>> Please return your answers to these two questions to me asap. J
>>
>>
>>
>> For those who would like to contribute to other questions about this topic
>> please refer directly to the workspace
>>
>>
>> https://community.icann.org/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Use+of+Country+and+Territory+Names+as+Top-Level+Domains+Workspace
>>
>>
>>
>> All comments welcome J
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>>
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> At-Large mailing list
> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
>
> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org