Dear Friends and Colleagues:
Allow me to add a few comments to this thread, and to note with appreciation that the issue was presented to CPWG in Marrakech with balance and understanding.
1. It is evident that I have a rather broader view of the interests of Internet users than is the case for some of our colleagues. In short, the interests of final Internet users include consumer protection and the conditions of fair and transparent competition.
In this case, the risks of consumer confusion and/or financial and fiscal fraud, fully justify the reservation, or close regulation of the ISO 4217 currency codes, as to which Registries would be eligible to apply for them.
2. The current status of this question in the PDP is that the co-leads of WT5 have formally referred the question to the PDP plenary because they doubt that these codes are geographical names within the scope of WT5.
(A curious position in so far as all the currency codes are directly derived from the ISO3166 alpha2 country codes. Whereas the alpha3 country codes, equally so derived, are fully protected.)
3. ATLAS III? I trust that this issue will have been resolved one-way-or-another before the Montreal meeting. However, even should colleagues deem that the currency codes are not geographical names and/or are not of interest to final Internet users, I would still consider that the issue is of major importance for the PDP, GNSO and the ICANN Board.
Best regards to you all
CW
PS: Pour memoire, I attach my original paper for CPWG on this matter.