At-Large Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace Workspace
AttachmentsComment Close | Statement | Status | Assignee(s) | Call for | Call for | Vote | Vote Open | Vote | Vote Close | Date of Submission | Staff Contact and Email | Statement Number |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
10.07.2014 | Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace | ADOPTED 13Y, 0N, 2A | Dev Anand Teelucksingh | 08.08.2014 | 11.08.2014 20:00 UTC | 11.08.2014 23:00 UTC | 11.08.2014 23:00 UTC | 15.08.2014 | 16.08.2014 23:00 UTC | 16.08.2014 | Krista Papac | AL-ALAC-ST-0814-01-01-EN |
For information about this PC, please click here
FINAL VERSION TO BE SUBMITTED IF RATIFIED
Please click here to review the reason for abstention from Fatima Cambronero
Please click here to review the reason for abstention from Rafid Fatani
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.
The At-Large Community has taken note of the many Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests submitted to ICANN by many New gTLD Registries applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement (see page 68 of the http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.pdf for the text of Specification 5, Section 2)
Many of the RSEP requests are for the release of two character ASCII labels not on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard. However, the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard is not a static document ; it will be updated to reflect changes to countries and territories. For example, BQ, CW and SX were added to the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard in late 2010 (see http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-1_newsletter_vi-8_split_of_the_dutch_antilles_final-en.pdf). This gives rise to a potential disparity in the implementation of Specification 5, Section 2 where future countries and territories would be treated differently than those countries and territories on today's ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 list.
However, two character ASCII labels at the second level have been made available for some gTLDs and many ccTLDs. Shorter domains are more desirable to potential registrants and two character ASCII labels can be used for alternative meanings than the one for the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard. For these reasons, absent any DNS-related security or stability issues, the ALAC believes that all the restrictions of two character ASCII labels at the 2nd level within a TLD should ultimately be removed, and has no problem with the current exceptions being approved.
FIRST DRAFT SUBMITTED
The At-Large Community has taken note of the many Registry Services Evaluation Process (RSEP) requests submitted to ICANN by many New gTLD Registries applying for exceptions to Specification 5, Section 2 of the New gTLD Registry Agreement (see page 68 of the http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/agb/agreement-approved-09jan14-en.pdf for the text of Specification 5, Section 2)
Two character labels at the second level have been made available for some gTLDs and many ccTLDs. Shorter domains are more desirable to potential registrants and two character ASCII labels can be used for alternative meanings than the one for the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 standard.
Absent any security or stability issues, the At-Large Community believes there should be no restriction of two character ASCII labels at the 2nd level within the TLD and that Specification 5, Section 2 should be removed.
Many of the RSEP requests are for the release of two character ASCII labels not on the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard. However, the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard is not a static document ; it will be updated to reflect new countries and territories. For example, BQ, CW and SX were added to the ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 standard in late 2010. (http://www.iso.org/iso/iso_3166-1_newsletter_vi-8_split_of_the_dutch_antilles_final-en.pdf).
If RSEP requests are approved by ICANN and the registries make available two character ASCII labels not on today’s ISO 3166-1 alpha 2 list, what happens when future countries and territories with new 2 character codes assigned by ISO want the same protections as per Specification 5, Section 2 and find such codes already allocated by the registries?
Similarly, how would the names of future countries and territories be protected as per Specification 5, Section 4 (Country and Territory Names) of the New gTLD Registry Agreement?
Methods of addressing this disparity of treatment between current and future countries and territories should be established before such RSEP requests are approved by ICANN.
Comments
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?
DEV The question that focuses the subject and then transcribe says to see:
If Specification 5 is intended to defend the principle that the ISO 3166-2 country codes must be protected in the new gTLDs, then you must meet to ensure that countries and future territories with new tags 2 ASCII characters are protected from same way as the regions and countries in today.
Specification 5 is transcribed at the site
https://icann-community.atlassian.net/wiki/display/alacpolicydev/At-Large+Introduction+of+Two-Character+Domain+Names+in+the+New+gTLD+Namespace+Workspace:
This Specification 5 says:
"All the labels of two ASCII characters will be excluded from enrollment or assignment to Registry Operator in the second level in the TLD. Such labels may not be active in the DNS, and may not be delivered for registration to any person or entity not registry operator if such label strings two characters may be it released to the extent that the Registry Operator reaches agreement with the related government and the head of country code string as specified in the ISO 3166-1 alpha-2. Registry Operator may also propose release of these reservations based on the introduction of measures to avoid confusion with the codes of the countries concerned, subject to the approval of ICANN. "
It is clear that the wording of this clause is restrictive. It also has not revealed requirements are met: Missing accordance with the related government and the country manager of the chain code. Also appears not fulfilled the measures applied in each country to avoid confusion with country codes as required by the standard.
I further understand that the request for all brands indiscriminately, as is done request is not covered by the standard. It is a restrictive rule and assumes that calls to a country and not globally.
Specification 5 is the first purely protective of country codes. Allowed only by exception and with many requirements, with the agreement of the country besides himself. The criterion is clearly to give prevalence to the country domain. Demands that also met the above requirements presented measures to avoid confusion with the country itself. It is very restrictive and gives a very strict protection for country codes.
From the point of view of the end user country code on the Internet is increasingly important for the sense of identity of a people, an idiosyncrasy, a paradigm, also with regard to himself and his country. Something like the flag of each country. This affirms confidence in global recognition through the local as part and within the global.
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.