At-Large Introduction of Two-Character Domain Names in the New gTLD Namespace Workspace

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.