Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: psbyowner
Date/Time: Mon, September 10, 2001 at 10:27 PM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V4.7 using Windows 98
Subject: Country .info names only

Message:
 

 

       
As some of the points raised, what about variability, such as:

misspellings (eg spainish.info, franch.info, englund.info, austrelia.info, etc...?

or added words, such as countryofspain.info, frenchnation.info, australiangovernment.info, etc etc etc...

They should stick to protecting the 2-letter country codes, and forget about the rest, as proposed by (SEE BELOW)

It sure came across as a seat of the pants proposal that was rubber stamped without being thought out. 

DETAILS BELOW:


Geographic and Geopolitical Names in .INFO
   A.   Cerf: GAC recommends that Board limit registrations of certain terms.
   B.   Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/geographic-names.html
   C.   Blokzijl: Don’t understand. We’re supposed to freeze something. But what is being frozen? Don’t know what we’re discussing here.
       1.   Cerf: ISO 3166-1 is a well-defined list. http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/codlstp1/en_listp1.html
       2.   Blokzijl: List in what language? And countries may feel strongly about what their names are. Consider also the problems of commas, spacing, and other complexities. And are surprised to see that it is OK to use two-letter country-codes in new gTLDs. We need more consistent policies than that.
   D.   Pisanty: Sensitive to the positions of governments that may not have represented in the most recent GAC meeting. Should leave flexibility for later.
   E.   Cohen: Read the motion and listened to discussion. Troubled by the time when this was brought to our attention. Some technical problems re implementation. Worry that it may be too late to fix the problem (by these means). And problem is difficult. Would oppose a motion to permanently exclude these strings from registration in new TLDs. But this motion is for a freeze only for a limited period of time. GAC should communicate with us and others to find other solutions to this problem.
   F.   Mueller-Maguhn: Could agree to blocking the ISO 3166-1 A2 characters (the two-letter abbreviations). But not the extended country names – too many variations.
       1.   Cerf: We’ll consider that as one possible way of proceeding.
   G.   Campos: Resolution only contemplates a limited freeze. Failure to pass this resolution is irreversible.
   H.   Katoh: Support the resolution. Question of what names are famous is controversial and difficult. Moving slowly here is a good idea. This is only a temporary measure, and the number of names to be blocked is very limited. We will not set a precedent in this way.
   I.   Kraaijenbrink: GAC asked us to take this measure on a limited scope – in one gTLD only. With this resolution, we are only preserving a possibility. It would be foolish to fail to pass this resolution.
   J.   Lynn: Must observe that it’s another instance of the problem of dealing with a medium that moves at Internet speed.
   K.   Abril: Agree, except nothing more permanent than a temporary decision. It comes at a moment of implementation. Advice to the Board on the gTLD process. Here, we have a request from the GAC. If we feel it is wrong, we shouldn’t hold back.
   L.   Schink: Could we make this available to the Board?
   M.   Cerf: Imagine that we could.
   N.   Blokzijl: Still not sure what we’re voting on.
   O.   Cerf: Understood.
   P.   Cohen: Reminded that Abril is right about temporary measures. Could motion be amended to add a time limit for the freeze, such as MdR meeting?
   Q.   Cerf: I think that’s possible.
   R.   Lynn: I know that everyone’s anxious to move forward. Concerned about letting things drag on. Cut off date should be Accra, Ghana meeting.
   S.   Touton: First, many of NC members met last night and decided that dealing with this matter is a high priority for NC. Second, re implementation issues, changing certain characters may not making everyone happy but would reflect action. Third, re French list.
   T.   Cerf: Problems of names in other languages.
   U.   Auerbach: Do we have authority to do this?
   V.   Cerf: Yes, under our contract, we do have such authority. W. Auerbach: Do we reserve the IDN forms as well?
   X.   Cerf: Absolutely must be one of the issues. Y. Touton: Currently, all IDN equivalents are in fact reserved until there’s a settlement. Z. Cerf: Suggests that there’s great debate re advisable of these measures. Time pressure of .INFO. Amend resolution to include time period of Accra. Also, if it passes, we should help GAC understand the difficulties. Third, because of historical practices, should also draw attention to possible inconsistencies that might be created. These second and third suggestions do not affect the language of the resolution.
   AA.   Fockler: Agrees. Would we assume that we will seek input from DNSO via NC?
   BB.   Cerf: Certainly will seek input.
   CC.   Murai: Special problems with non-English versions.
   DD.   Touton: Not a problem in the English version.
   EE.   Blokzijl: A lot of room with slight deviations.
   FF.   Auerbach: What happens at end of freeze:
   GG.   Voting on proposal as amended (to put a time limit on the freeze of Accra, Ghana meeting in March): Auerbach, Pisanty, Mueller-Maguhn, Abril y Abril, Blokzijl, Murai, Quaynor against. Others in favor.
X.   IDN Committee
   A.   Resolution presented – http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/icann/montevideo/archive/res/idn.html
   B.   Cerf: Resolution would create an IDN Committee. To be chaired by Katoh, to be bottom-up.
   C.   Katoh: These are important issues. We will work to coordinate the process here.
   D.   Lynn: Resolution is precise and careful. But resolution understates our sense of importance and urgency of the problem here. ICANN Board should show its commitment and leadership in this area.
   E.   Abril i Abril: How long will it take to get a list of committee members?
       1.   Lynn: Before MdR.
   F.   Schink: Amendment: Report to be presented to ICANN Board for approval. (Revision to final Resolved clause.)
       1.   Cerf: Agreed.
   G.   Vote: All in favor.

 


Message Thread: