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

[Javier Rua]

All,

Although I admit I do think the Gutiérrez proposal is fundamentally sound, as WT5 co-chair I should favor my role as ALAC facilitator over any “active participant” role in the work track. As such, I support and encourage all the internal discussion and debate this group can have on this, in order to weigh in collective or individual opinions into the work track; and I will make sure any such position is heard and taken into account. 

I also will say that if ALAC manages to rally around any position that is supported by a diverse group of members, a position that is not “partisan” but truly consensual, that would be perceived and objectively be a great triumph of the multistakeholder model.

Keep up the good work!

Javier Rúa-Jovet

+1-787-396-6511
twitter: @javrua
skype: javier.rua1
https://www.linkedin.com/in/javrua 


> On Aug 12, 2018, at 4:52 AM, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 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/20180812/0fa7487b/attachment.html>