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

[Maureen Hilyard]

Well, I hope that Olivier, Jonathan and Javier have their heads together
over that one!  :)

You might have to join them Justine. Its alright if we ask this amongst
ourselves and try to reach some supportive resolution, but if someone
raises that within the WT5 we could go on again for another 3 weeks of the
same arguments.

We haven't had much feedback on Greg's suggestions made for At-Large to
discuss, or have we been swamped?? Perhaps put that on the CPWG agenda.

Maureen

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 7:26 PM, Justine Chew <justine.chew at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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/20180812/680de53b/attachment.html>