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

[Sebastien Bachollet]

Hello all,
I would like to be sure that the proposal of Carlos embedded some of « my » definition and question?
"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.”
governmental authorities: include local or regional authorities?
I suppose that relevant is relevant for both governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public
interest/public benefit entities?
And can I suggest that the and be replace by or?

All the best
SeB

> Le 11 août 2018 à 20:43, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard at gmail.com> a écrit :
> 
> 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
> _______________________________________________
> GTLD-WG mailing list
> GTLD-WG at atlarge-lists.icann.org
> https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
> 
> Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs