<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">You are right, I did
misunderstand you. In ISO3166-1 Comoros has been assigned the 3
ltr code com. Oops, can't undo that I'm afraid. Carlos'
proposal offers some respite. At least Comoros would not be competing
with a brand for whatever 3 ltr string they choose. <br>
</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 8/12/2018 6:15 PM, Justine Chew
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAHndqHYTWX18D9owqVu+8TAAOQ02z6wzUxQcGkvGRo9Ot6xncg@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="auto">
<div>Marita,</div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I think you misunderstand me. It would be
unthinkable to reverse the already delegated ".com". </div>
<div dir="auto"><br>
</div>
<div dir="auto">I am simply asking -- in light of the Carlos'
proposal and following the ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter code
list, the Union of Comoros would have then been entitled to
apply for ".com" -- since that is no longer available what
alternative should be considered for the Union of Comoros that
would not disadvantage them (assuming they wanted to apply for
their 3 letter code)?<br>
<br>
<div data-smartmail="gmail_signature" dir="auto">Justine<br>
-----</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote" dir="auto">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, 12 Aug 2018, 17:19 Marita Moll, <<a
href="mailto:mmoll@ca.inter.net" moz-do-not-send="true">mmoll@ca.inter.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">I would
say that legacy TLDs like .com are not going to be
affected. Since this is an evolving system, there
will always be anomalies. GTLDs like .com would
simply be grandfathered (or grandmothered?)</font></p>
<p><font face="Times New Roman, Times, serif">Marita</font><br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="m_5780025654607085419moz-cite-prefix">On
8/12/2018 10:26 AM, Justine Chew wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small">Maureen,<br>
<br>
With reference to Carlos
<div class="gmail_default" style="display:inline"> </div>
Raul Gutierrez's proposal of:</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-size:small"><br>
"<i><b>ICANN may only consider applications of ISO
3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by
relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD
managers and public interest/public benefit
entities</b>.</i>”<br>
<br>
While I believe the existing policy of permanent
reservation/non-availability of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3
letter codes is undesirable, hence I would also
support the call for making such exact matches
available to and only to the entities suggested by
Carlos, I am mindful that we should perhaps, if we
can, supplement such a call with a proposition to
deal with exact 3 letter matches that have already
been delegated -- ".com" comes to mind. Also, in
view of potential future changes to the ISO 3166-1
list. <br>
<br>
In other words, if we make ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3
letter codes available, how should we deal with
the Union of the Comoros' then right to and/or
potential desire for (the already delegated)
".com" gTLD? <br>
<br clear="all">
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr"
class="m_5780025654607085419gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">Thanks,<br>
<br>
Justine Chew <br>
-----</div>
</div>
<br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 02:44,
Maureen Hilyard <<a
href="mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com"
target="_blank" rel="noreferrer"
moz-do-not-send="true">maureen.hilyard@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0
0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc
solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div dir="ltr">Hi everyone
<div><br>
</div>
<div>If you have been following the
discussions in WT5 you will see that there
has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO
consensus process on Country and Territory
Names and how best to come to a decision on
each of the key issues that are being
discussed. <br>
</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>With regards to an agreement over
3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul
Gutierrez has proposed the following
suggestion to help this process move
forward, I believe we should consider his
proposal as a reasonable compromise
considering all the discussion that has
taken place and send our support (or
otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC
views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads
but will be required <u>by Tuesday??</u>.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div><b>This is urgent, as it appears that
consensus calls will be received by the
co-Chairs during the week and as they
will have to prepare for the next WT5
meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to
include an ALAC opinion as well. </b></div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“Dear Annebeth,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>As you have heard me (too) many times
before, I admire the track record of
preceding, clearly focused public interest 3
letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from
Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France,
and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Now that I re-stated my rationale for
such a clear-cut public interest case in an
email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY,
accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I
hereby submit to the WT my final revised
language suggestion, which is ONLY
applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would
substitute the following final paragraph in
the relevant section which deals with
3-Letter codes: “<i>The SubPro may want to
consider recommending whether any future
application/revision/delegation process to
be established (either generic or
restricted to the Geographic categories
only), should determine if, when, and how
specific interested parties, such as
relevant public international, national or
sub-national public authorities, may apply
for country and territory names</i>"</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>My suggestion for a FORWARD looking
option is:</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>“<b>ICANN may only consider applications
of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes
submitted by relevant governmental
authorities, ccTLD managers and public
interest/public benefit entities</b>.”</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible
part of a forward-looking recommendation
that could go ahead with broader WT
consensus. And if it does not, please make
sure it is recorded as an objection against
a permanent restriction of the delegation of
the ISO 3-Letter list.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Thanks to all,</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" <br>
</div>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
<a
href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset
class="m_5780025654607085419mimeAttachmentHeader"></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
<a class="m_5780025654607085419moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">CPWG@icann.org</a>
<a class="m_5780025654607085419moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
_______________________________________________<br>
CPWG mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:CPWG@icann.org" target="_blank"
rel="noreferrer" moz-do-not-send="true">CPWG@icann.org</a><br>
<a href="https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg"
rel="noreferrer noreferrer" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg</a><br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>