[Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

[Alexander Schubert]

Hi,

 

Page 21 the three preferences how alpha-3 codes could be handled:

 

1) support for opening all ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to eligiblity as gTLDs
(eligibility is misspelled - and the sentence makes no sense! Probably meant
as: "...... to be eligible as gTLDs"?)


I do not see any more the option that has already garnered a LOT of support:
Treating the 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes like ALL other designators in
the ISO 3166 (e.g. "BAR" or "TATA"): In the existing AG for ALL 3166 listed
elements there is a requirement that the relevant Government authority has
to sign a letter of non-objection! 

So I suggest we either add to 1) that OF COURSE the already established AG
requirement for a letter of non-objection would be triggered for alpha-3
codes as well!

Or we have a 4th preference.
Indeed: Annex D provides for FOUR possibilities discussed by the SOs/ACs. 


On page 22 it says:

"Supporting to open all 3-character codes as gTLDs:
.             There is no sovereign or other ownership right of governments
in country or territory names, including ISO 3166-1 codes, so there is no
legal basis for government veto power on allocation of these codes as gTLDs"

 

Not true! The AG has a provision whereby ALL ISO 3166 elements need a letter
of non-objection of the Government! See ".bar" or ".tata"! Obviously if
already a tiny mini municipality like the TATA region (15,000 people, all
desert, no industry, but listed in ISO 3166) requires such a letter then OF
COURSE a 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 code requires it as well!

 

Thanks,

 

Alexander Schubert




 

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces at icann.org]
On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:26 PM
To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap at NLnetLabs.nl>
Cc: ctn-crosscom at icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment

 

Dear Jaap,

 

Thank you for your review and feedback. Staff will review the formatting and
content of the frames. 

 

Kind regards,

Emily

 

On 25/01/17 04:48, "Jaap Akkerhuis" < <mailto:jaap at NLnetLabs.nl>
jaap at NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:

 

     Emily Barabas writes:

    

     > Please find attached a revised version of the CWG-UCTN Interim Paper.

     > This version incorporates language to reflect a lack of consensus on

     > recommendation 3.

     > 

     > 

     > Kindly provide any final revisions or comments on the Interim Paper
by

     > Friday 3 February.

    

    Dear Emily,

    

    I did a quick scan and noticed that something went with the two

    "Frames" about the ISO 3166. They now look as a single one to me. But

    apart from that, the first one seemed to have a garbled sentences here

    and there. Note the start of the second section, to quote:

    

                The ISO body responsible for the standard 3166 is the

                Technical Committee 46, systems etc. and as non-current,

                dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical

                interest (ISO/TC 46/WG2).

    

    And there are more of these.

    

    I will have a nore close read later, but these things really needs to

    be clean up.

    

    Regards,

    

                jaap

    

 

_______________________________________________

Ctn-crosscom mailing list

 <mailto:Ctn-crosscom at icann.org> Ctn-crosscom at icann.org

 <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ctn-crosscom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/ctn-crosscom/attachments/20170126/c07756ed/attachment.html>