[CPWG] URGENT - WT5 proposal for 3-letter country codes
Marita Moll
mmoll at ca.inter.net
Sun Aug 12 18:09:10 UTC 2018
You are right, I did misunderstand you. In ISO3166-1 Comoros has been
assigned the 3 ltr code com. Oops, can't undo that I'm afraid. Carlos'
proposal offers some respite. At least Comoros would not be competing
with a brand for whatever 3 ltr string they choose.
Marita
On 8/12/2018 6:15 PM, Justine Chew wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> CPWG mailing list
>> CPWG at icann.org <mailto:CPWG at icann.org>
>> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
>
> _______________________________________________
> CPWG mailing list
> CPWG at icann.org <mailto: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/20180812/879f798e/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the CPWG
mailing list