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

Comment Close Date	Statement Name	Status	Assignee(s)	Call for Comments Open	Call for Comments Close	Vote Open	Vote Close	Date of Submission	Staff Contact and Email	Statement Number
09 Oct 2015	Use of Country and Territory Names as Top-Level Domains	DRAFTING	Main penholder: Maureen Hilyard In consultation with: Cheryl Langdon-Orr	TBC	TBC	TBC	TBC	TBC	Glen de Saint Géry Glen@icann.org Lars Hoffmann lars.hoffmann@icann.org	TBC

For information about this Public Comment, please click here 

Dear SO/AC Chair,

As you may be aware, the ccNSO and GNSO Councils have chartered a Cross Community Working Group on the Use of Country and Territory Names as top-level domains (CWG-UCTN). The objective of the CWG-UCTN is to review the current status of representations of country and territory names, as they exist under current ICANN policies, guidelines and procedures. In addition, the Group has been asked to provide advice regarding the feasibility of developing a consistent and uniform set of definitions that could be applicable across the respective SO's and AC's for country and territory names as top-level domains. Please note that the scope of the WG is strictly limited to:

• Representations of names of Countries, Territories and their subdivisions listed on or eligible to be listed on the Alpha-2 code International Standard for country codes and codes for their subdivisions (ISO 3166-1), (Names of Country and Territory). Other geographical indicators, such as regions, are excluded;
• The use of Country and Territory names as Top Level Domains. The use of Country and Territory names as second or other level is excluded.

The CWG-UTCN has divided its work into three work stream: 2-letter codes, 3-letter codes, and full names of countries and territories; currently the Group is starting its discussion on 3-letter codes and it is on this issue specifically that your feedback is being sought at this time. Please note that the community will be given ample opportunity to comment and provide feedback on all other issues in due course.

To help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character codes, you will find below a number of questions; it would be very helpful to the Group if you could provide feedback on some or all questions raised. Please do not hesitate to supply any additional comments you may have on three-letter codes, as long as they are within the scope of work of the CWG (see above).

Please send your comments to Lars Hoffmann (lars.hoffmann@icann.org), who is part of the CWG’s staff support team, by Friday 9 October 2015. If you cannot submit your input by that date, but you would like to contribute, please let us know when we can expect to receive your contribution so we can plan accordingly.

Your input will be very much appreciated.

With best regards,

Heather Forrest, GNSO (Co-Chair)

Carlos Gutiérrez, GNSO (Co-Chair)

Annebeth Lange, ccNSO (Co-Chair)

Paul Szyndler, ccNSO (Co-Chair)

==

Questions by the CWG-UCTN on 3-character codes with regard to the use of country and territory names as top-level domains

1. In future, should all three-character top-level domains be reserved as ccTLDs only and be ineligible for use as gTLDs? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?
2. 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? What would be the advantage or disadvantage of such a policy?
3. 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?
4. 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?
5. 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?
6. 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?
7. Do you have any additional comments that may help the CWG-UCTN in its discussion on three-character strings as top-level domains?

 

FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED

The final version to be submitted, if the draft is ratified, will be placed here by upon completion of the vote. 

---

FINAL DRAFT VERSION TO BE VOTED UPON BY THE ALAC

The final draft version to be voted upon by the ALAC will be placed here before the vote is to begin.

 

---

FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED

Consensus within the At-Large community was that all 3-character TLDs should not be reserved solely for ccTLDs but the community was split as to whether there was real merit in reserving  3-letter codes for use only by ccTLDs .

It was felt that the same standard that was applied to the 2-letter codes should also be applied to 3-letter codes used exclusively for country codes as in the ISO 3166-1 list. ISO alpha-3 codes should be reserved as an alternative standard for country and territory codes in the same way that other standards have been reserved - ISO 4217 (for currencies) and ISO 639 (for languages). This would open up the rest of the 3-letter options as gTLDs.

While some 3-letter country codes are easily identifiable as referring to specific countries/territories and others less so, it was also recognised that there are still others that would be very desirable as 3-letter gTLDs.  There are already examples where 3-letter country codes are currently being used as gTLDs by other organisations (eg .com, where COM is the code for Comoros Islands being the most notable).  It was noted that current exceptions to the reservation standard did not invalidate the standard moving forward but creating exceptions could diminish trust in ICANN and subsequently trust in the stability of the DNS.

One IDN operator believes that reserving 3-letter IDN and other ccTLDs will help to strengthen the position of ccTLD operators, and enable them to be legitimately represented within the ICANN system.  As ICANN has decided that IDN ccTLDs will be delegated to the same registries as hold their existing ccTLDs, it has been recommended that this precedent should be referred to when the delegation of alpha-3 codes arises.

The opposing view proposed that as every geographical area has a 2-letter country code and there are plenty of 2-letter codes remaining, countries may not want to be bothered with using an assigned 3-letter code as well.  The call by this group was to open the 3-letter codes to all, and maintain the 2-letter codes for ccTLDs. It was raised that while we might be trying to establish some consistency within the standard, to reserve some 3-letter codes that might never be used and not others could create consumer confusion and cause issues to be raised later on.

While recommending that 3-letter codes should be opened up as gTLDS it was also suggested that those 3-letters that are listed for ccTLDs in ISO 3166-1 might be used but must not be marketed or used as pseudo-ccs.   Policing or enforcing this however would be problematic, so that even if restricting good codes for gTLD use when they were unlikely ever to be used as ccTLDs, might not be worth the hassle of creating a reserved list.

It was suggested by a couple of respondents that offering 3-letter codes could encourage further power play between governments and the GNSO. It was suggested that governments have zero obligation to honour the GNSO and that the GNSO needs to demonstrate that it deserves the trust of the world’s governments.  This  is not helped when it appears that the GNSO is making a “land-grab” on 3-letter country codes - eroding trust even faster. Although several respondents agreed to the opening up of ccTLDs as gTLDs there was still some reticence about 3-letter country codes being run under the GNSO in competition with Alpha-2 codes being run by the ccNSO.  This would be inviting government intervention.  As the ccNSO does not have all ccTLD managers as members, they too would not have any authority over 3-letter country codes.

There was very strong agreement among the community that there is a need for a moratorium where a full evaluation could be made of the potential impacts of the current expansion of the existing new gTLD programme. It has also been recommended  to increase user confidence in navigating the enlarged domain space that along with a time-framed moratorium, promotional and educational resources and activities related to the introduction of the new gTLDS be developed in areas (geographical, political, social, economic, etc) that were not served well in the first run.