I fully agree with Patricio, and would not be able to vote in favour of
this Bylaw change.

As he wrote, the easy part first:

        From the Standard itself:

                The ISO 3166 series provides universally applicable
                coded representations of names of countries (current and
                non-current), dependencies, and other areas of
                particular geopolitical interest and their subdivisions.

                ISO 3166-1 establishes codes that represent the current
                names of countries, dependencies, and other areas of
                particular geopolitical interest, on the basis of
                country names obtained from the United Nations.

                ISO 3166-2 establishes a code that represents the names
                of the principal administrative divisions, or similar
                areas, of the countries and entities included in ISO
                3166-1.

                ISO 3166-3 establishes a code that represents non-
                current country names, i.e. the country names deleted
                from ISO 3166 since its first publication in 1974.

                The ISO 3166 series do not express any opinion
                whatsoever concerning the legal status of any country,
                dependency, or other area named herein, or concerning
                its frontiers or boundaries.

        And hence I would refine Patricio's proposal to use the word
        'country' throughout and insert at the beginning language that
        defines 'country' to mean names of countries (current and
        non-current), dependencies, and other areas of particular
        geopolitical interest and their subdivisions.

However, I will also not be able to vote in favor of Bylaw change
that creates (even) the hint of an impression of a linkage between a
country (itself) and a ccTLD.

ccTLDs are NAMED after 2 letter codes representing the NAME(S) of
countries, they have no other (intrinsic) relationship with
countries themselves, per se, or as far as ICANN is concerned.

Please forward to the Council list.

greetings, el


On 2021-08-27 17:44 , Alejandra Reynoso via Ccnso-members wrote:
 > Dear Patricio
 >
 > Thank you very much for your comment and feedback.  I will forward
 > your concern to ICANN Legal.
 >
 > Additionally, I want to take this opportunity to remind everyone that
 > later in the bylaw change process there will be a public comment
 > period, where you are welcome to participate.
 >
 > Best regards,
 > Alejandra
[...]
 > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 10:30 AM Patricio Poblete via Ccnso-members
 > <ccnso-members@icann.org> wrote:
 >
 >     Hello all,
 >
 >     Some comments, speaking exclusively as a ccTLD administrator.
 >
 >     First the easy stuff: in (e) (iii), change "manger" to "manager"
 >
 >     Now, the main point.  I really disagree with the deprecation of
 >     the word "country" and its replacement by "territory".
 >
 >     Among the ccTLDs, countries are the rule, and non-country
 >     territories are the exception.  We are ccTLDs, not tcTLDs, and the
 >     ccNSO is not the tcNSO.
 >
 >     I don't think it is a good idea to have the bylaws break in its
 >     use of terms from long standing tradition.  RFC1591 speaks only of
 >     countries, never of territories, even though I suppose Postel was
 >     aware he was abusing the word "country" a little bit.  The FoI
 >     report uses "countries or territories" a lot, but even then,
 >     "country" is used twice as often as "territory".
 >
 >     My preference would be to use "countries" throughout, and have a
 >     note at the beginning specifying that the use of this word in the
 >     bylaws must be interpreted to mean "countries or territories".  My
 >     second best choice would be to use "countries or territories"
 >     everywhere.
 >
 >     Finally, I would suggest a better wording for the phrase "or other
 >     area of particular geopolitical interest listed on the
 >     ‘International Standard ISO 3166-1,...', which might be understood
 >     as if other territories that did not get their own code would be
 >     of no particular geopolitical interest.  A better phrase could be
 >     'or other geographical area listed on the ‘International Standard
 >     ISO 3166-1,...'
 >
 >     Thanks for your attention,
 >
 >     Patricio
[...]

--
Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse   \         /       Obstetrician & Gynaecologist
el@lisse.NA             / *      |  Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell)
PO Box 8421 Bachbrecht  \      /  If this email is signed with GPG/PGP
10007, Namibia           ;____/ Sect 20 of Act No. 4 of 2019 may apply
         Book your Covid-10 Vaccination at https://c19.idtoday.com.na
_______________________________________________
Ccnso-members mailing list
Ccnso-members@icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccnso-members
_______________________________________________
By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.