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

[Justine Chew]

Maureen,

With reference to Carlos

Raul Gutierrez's proposal of:

"*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.*”

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.

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?

Thanks,

Justine Chew
-----


On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 02:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com>
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"
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180812/ca2920ed/attachment.html>