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

[Sivasubramanian M]

On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM 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*.”
>

+1.   And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN
could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD
managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and
best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct
from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well,
some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different
direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but
in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external
entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control
irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps
even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC.  If alpha3
codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity
for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS,
somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully
coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3
application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract
with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD
experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective
countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3
codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with
the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M


> 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
> _______________________________________________
> registration-issues-wg mailing list
> registration-issues-wg at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg
>


-- 
Sivasubramanian M
Please send all replies to 6.Internet at gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mm.icann.org/pipermail/cpwg/attachments/20180815/f196f424/attachment-0001.html>