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

[Justine Chew]

Marita,

I think you misunderstand me. It would be unthinkable to reverse the
already delegated ".com".

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)?

Justine
-----

On Sun, 12 Aug 2018, 17:19 Marita Moll, <mmoll at ca.inter.net> wrote:

> 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?)
>
> Marita
>
> On 8/12/2018 10:26 AM, Justine Chew 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing listCPWG at icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20180813/ae6910bc/attachment.html>