Hi Evan, On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch@gmail.com> wrote:
At its core, this is about putting public property (ie, an existing international standard) in pr oprietary hands
Is it? I'm not seeing it. It DOES mean that 3 letter codes could be used as gTLD (the ccTLD manager could apply as well and use it as a psuedo-ccTLD if they wanted). Nation States do not OWN the codes, or the standard (ISO). Nation States have, in theory, asserted authority over 2 letter ccTLDs, but in practice that hasn't always been the case in practice. The Tunis Agenda that asserted sovereignty is a non-binding agreement.
... like having a troll trying to assert copyright on the flags of the world.
The fact that there are exceptions to reservation of the standard (.com, .uk) does not negate the validity of the standard going forward. Going after it will simply diminish trust in ICANN even below its current awful levels, and at some point this diminishing trust will affect DNS stability.
red-herring IMHO.
As for the GACophobia...
I am not GAC phobic, I just want them to understand their role and not assert more authority than they have on paper. In practice, they have done end-arounds to implement the blocking of thousands of strings at the second level without appropriate GNSO action as just one example of how they would like to have more power.
f ine. As Olivier suggests, punt it to the ccNSO first and see what they think. That's critical feedback to this issue.
Why? The ccNSO doesn't have ALL cc's as Member's nor do they have authority over 3 letter codes. This would be a radical shift done without a PDP. -- Cheers, McTim "A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel