I don't think so!
BTW, that would be a clear invitation for numbers of governments to intervene directly in GNSO matters. Is that what one wants?
Furthermore, ICANN, having decided that the IDN ccTLDs would be delegated to the same Registries as hold their existing ccTLDs ('fast track'),
someone would no doubt point to that precedent if and when the question of delegating the alpha-3 codes might arise.
Regards
CW (In my personal capacity with no axe to grind: the alpha-3 code EUR will in any event be embargoed because it is also in ISO-4217, currency code for the €.)
PS: Has anyone asked ISO? My recollection is that at the time the European Commission asked ISO specifically for permission to use the EU alpha-2 code as a ccTLD (they agreed).
A fortiori, ISO might have views about how their alpha-3 codes could be used.
Hi Olivier, all
I understand the sentiments and I somewhat agree with you on the fact the there is need for some form of "power" distribution. I will personally say apart from power, orderliness and structure is another aspect we may be loosing once the 3 letter is opened up in the manner proposed. This was actually why I added a +1 to John as i read his mail to mean "let the the 3 letters be open to all" and maintain the 2 letters to ccTLDs". I don't know of any instance where a country(new) could not get alpha-2 codes. The alpha-2 is closer to the work of IANA as its what is also used within the IETF within IETF as well.
That said, there is also merit in reserving the corresponding alpha-3 letter of each country and then opening up to the Gs. The advantage in that is that some level of consistency will be ensured so the registry managing for instance .ng will also manage .ngr
Regards
_______________________________________________
At-Large mailing list
At-Large@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/at-large
At-Large Official Site: http://atlarge.icann.org