[CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes

[Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond]

Dear Maureen,

thanks for asking this question.
For various reasons, I have been staying away from WT5 work, but the
proposal from Carlos makes sense so I would support it.

The only question I might have is "what is the purpose of the proposal?"
because I can certainly see some communities arguing against reserving
ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes. Would this be the current list, as of
18 August 2018? Or would this block off all 3 letter TLDs thus reserving
3 letter TLDs for any potential future addition to the ISO 3166-1 Alpha
3 Letter Codes? Is the GNSO ready to hand off potentially valuable 3
letter TLDs to the CC community?

So to me, the purpose of the proposal appears to be to record an
objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO
3-Letter list.

Would that put the issue to bed? Probably not.
Kindest regards,

Olivier

On 11/08/2018 20:43, Maureen Hilyard wrote:
> Hi everyone
>
> 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. 
>
> 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 _by Tuesday??_.
>
> *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. *
>
> “Dear Annebeth,
>
> 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
>
> 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: “/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/"
>
> My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:
>
> “*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*.”
>
> 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.
>
> Thanks to all,
>
> Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180812/b7eee26d/attachment-0001.html>