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

[wilkinson christopher]

Good afternoon:

We seem to be conducting two parallel discussions; so be it.
Here is my recent posting to the PDP on ISO 3166:

CW
---------- Mensaje original ----------
De: "lists at christopherwilkinson.eu Wilkinson" <lists at christopherwilkinson.eu>
Para: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 at icann.org
Fecha: 19 de agosto de 2018 a las 16:28
Asunto: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] ISO-3166 WT5 Agenda, Work Plan & Consensus Call on Country & Territory Names - Please review before our call.

Good afternoon:

The length and complexity of the current Threads are such that a reasonably prompt comprehensive reply would be impossible, so I shall reply severally in the next few days, to the main points.

Regarding ISO 3166:  This in an International Standard. Usually, responsible entities, both public and private respect International standards (even if they are not mandated in law).

The fact that in his wisdom, Jon Postel chose to use the 2 letter codes for ccTLDs at that time, does not detract from the validity of the rest of the 3166 Standard. The fact that a number of ISO 3 letter codes correspond to generic (EN/ASCII) words is immaterial. No one has ever said that ALL generic words (in how many languages and scripts?) are fair game for expropriation as gTLDs. 

In any event, it is absolutely essential that these country-related codes are used by and for and in the corresponding jurisdictions. The idea that there may be extraterritorial 'registry families' of ISO three letter codes, whether for geo- or non-geo purposes, will not fly.

In short, should some of us in WT5 (and it seems that there are some) wish to change the designation of ISO codes, let us go to Geneva and the 3166 maintenance agency and ask them, not to ICANN.

Regarding the Comores/.com argument, may I say that there are several decisions of the National Science Foundation (US NSF) from the 1980's with which I would have demurred, if asked. The Internet has got used to living with 'mistakes' from the past. But that is no argument for extending bad precedents to the whole of the DNS in the future. NO. Let us bear in mind that the policies and rules that shall be applied in the next 'rounds' would have to apply globally and should be immunised from the vagaries of the accumulated (EN/ASCII) decisions of the past.

Regards

Christopher Wilkinson