[At-Large] At-Large Use of Country and Territory Names as Top Level Domains
Dev Anand Teelucksingh
devtee at gmail.com
Thu Oct 1 19:27:41 UTC 2015
As a FYI, there's is an informative page buried on ICANN's website
about ICANN and ISO and how changes to the ISO list are done and how
ICANN is involved
On Thu, Oct 1, 2015 at 7:46 AM, Dev Anand Teelucksingh <devtee at gmail.com> wrote:
> Interesting conversation. Some thoughts which I posted at
> 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
> 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>
>>> 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
>>> All comments welcome J
>>> At-Large mailing list
>>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
>> At-Large mailing list
>> At-Large at atlarge-lists.icann.org
>> At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org
More information about the At-Large