GAC Agenda Item 3: Country codes and country names as second-level domains (SLDs)

Two different issues ref. country codes THIS SESSION! Three-character country codes at the top-level in future rounds e.g. domainname.CCC Two-letter country codes at the second-level in current round e.g. CC.newgTLD VS Implementation issue Ongoing process development since 2014 (notifications, mitigation etc.) Tomorrow’s session Policy Development Process (PDP)

Background on two-character country codes as SLDs Specification 5 of the Registry Agreement (RA) initially reserves 2- character country codes as SLDs. But ROs can propose release to relevant governments or to ICANN, which can approve, "based on implementation of measures to avoid confusion with the corresponding country-code.” ICANN process to release two-letter codes as SLDs: Government comments: Countries comments within 60 days online form. Only comments on user confusion were accepted. Registries propose a plan to mitigate concerns of confusion with corresponding country codes. ICANN will draft criteria for approval of mitigation plans. Considering community feedback, final criteria for approval to be produced.   The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes

Measures to address ccTLD confusion with country codes Mitigation measures proposed by registry operators (ROs): ROs for brand TLDs wrote that RA’s Specification 13 prevents confusion with ccTLD. Most registries of TLDs with restricted registration policies also thought their restricted registration policies addressed confusion. Many ROs of open TLDs commit to investigate and address reports of misuse. Phased allocation programs: for 30 days, ccTLD manager could register objected country codes: used under “old” new gTLDs. The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes Prohibiting resale: a few ROs would prohibit resale of lower level domain names under objected country codes.

Possible GAC advice on two-character codes mitigation 1/2 Goal: contribute to shape ICANN´s decision & preserve the distinctive character of two-letter codes as country identifiers in the DNS / prevent confusion: Measures Rationale LIKE?: Investigate and address abuse reports as a minimum. Based on Registry´s sole opinion. LIKE?: Standard criteria? Clearly state it has no relationship with the relevant government. Cat. 1 TLDs!! LIKE: Brand TLDs –Specification 13 of RA. LIKE?: restrictive registration policies obviate the need for further measures. Closed TLD for promoting the brand in different markets. OTHER: Reservation under .army, .navy and .airforce unless in agreement with the government. Some of them are not checked ex ante. Uncertainty about enforcement. OTHER: More stringent mitigation measures (allocation based on planned use, consultation with governments and domain name reservation) should be encouraged on a voluntary basis. Inherently governmental functions. Visual confusion should be avoided. Effective. Voluntary measures. The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes

Possible GAC advice on two-character codes mitigation 2/2 Measures Rationale LIKE: Phased allocation, except for brand TLDs and TLDs with restricted registration policies?? Effective. Used in the past. Country codes are put off the market or used by governments. Question: obligation to use the domain name? OTHER: Allow to register CC in liaison with GAC reps. Governments may not reach agreement with the ccTLD to register the name. OTHER: 2-letter codes should not be priced higher than ordinary second level domains for governments or ccTLD Registries. Avoid speculation and fair access to all governments and ccTLDs. Question: Fees charged by Registrars on 2-character names? OTHER: Holders of trademarks, trade names and service marks should be second in line to register names. Trademark owners use the name for purposes not related to the country. LIKE: Where the registrant is not the respective ccTLD Registry Operator, third- party domain name registration at lower levels shall not be allowed. To avoid confusion with ccTLDs. The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes

GAC Agenda Item 3, part 2: Country names as second-level domains (SLDs)

Background information about country names as SLDs Format: “Country.TLD.”, e.g.: “.Spain.New.” Specification 5 of the RA reserves country and territory names. But ROs can propose release to relevant governments or to ICANN, subject to “review by the GAC”. By May 2016, 12 sets of RSEP requests (40 new gTLDs) on the release of country and territory names. Not yet granted. In July 2015, GAC shared “database clarifying individual GAC Members’ requirements regarding notification of requests for release”. Only 9 countries and territories do not require notification. The GAC could discuss views on a possible future process for CTNs as SLDs, so as to help shape the process. Avoid strenuous experience with 2-letter names. Addressing Registries´ requests while taking into account sensitivity of country names. The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes

Previous GAC advice on Country and territory names Previous GAC advice on country and territory names as second-level focused on: Recognizing importance and sensitivity for governments Need for actual consent (ie lack of objection is not approval) Need for ICANN to consider process thoughtfully + involve GAC upstream => no specific process for GAC review of CTNs as SLDs yet The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes

GAC options - Country and territory names as SLDs GAC could try to help shape future process: Specify the kind of considerations (political, sovereignty-related, jurisdictional?) country and territory names in the DNS raise for many GAC members. Recall capacity limitations preventing many GAC members from effective participation in complex or lengthy process. Consider period of time needed for national consultations > 30 days? Fairness for countries that are not yet GAC members. Start to discuss what “review by the GAC” should entail. May help to differentiate categories of TLDs: e.g. Category 1; restricted TLDs; brand TLDs; geoTLDs; open TLDs, and languages in which TLDs are meaningful. Possible GAC advice to ICANN before ICANN decides on a process. The RA sets review by the GAC as a condition to release CTNs. The RA does not specify what GAC review means and ccTLD manager for two-character codes

Possible GAC advice ICANN to conduct an analysis of past experiences: Issues countries have had. Evolution of contractual clauses in RA. Treatment of country names in ccTLD registration policies. ICANN to gather information on plans of large Registries, Registries running category 1 strings as TLDs… on future plans to register country names. Anything else? Rationale: Some Registries reserved names or gave priority to governments to register them (.info…). Info about the degree and types of use and misuse of country names should inform future process for release. GAC could better shape its advice in view of proposed Registry plans for release.

Thank you ! Do you want GAC to issue advice on these issues? What do you think about draft advice and new elements introduced in this presentation? 2-letter names: different types of TLDs > different measures??

Background – timeline Oct 2014 Jan 2015 Feb 2015 6 Oct 2015 5 Dec 2015 2016 Launch of ICANN process to request release 2-char SLDs GAC advice Board resolution Refined ICANN process 6 Oct 15: new ICANN process Deadline for GAC to clarify comments requesting Iterative process to define criteria for registry mitigation plans (ICANN, registries, public comments)