Marita, I think you misunderstand me. It would be unthinkable to reverse the already delegated ".com". I am simply asking -- in light of the Carlos' proposal and following the ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter code list, the Union of Comoros would have then been entitled to apply for ".com" -- since that is no longer available what alternative should be considered for the Union of Comoros that would not disadvantage them (assuming they wanted to apply for their 3 letter code)? Justine ----- On Sun, 12 Aug 2018, 17:19 Marita Moll, <mmoll@ca.inter.net> wrote:
I would say that legacy TLDs like .com are not going to be affected. Since this is an evolving system, there will always be anomalies. GTLDs like .com would simply be grandfathered (or grandmothered?)
Marita
On 8/12/2018 10:26 AM, Justine Chew wrote:
Maureen,
With reference to Carlos
Raul Gutierrez's proposal of:
"*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities.*”
While I believe the existing policy of permanent reservation/non-availability of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes is undesirable, hence I would also support the call for making such exact matches available to and only to the entities suggested by Carlos, I am mindful that we should perhaps, if we can, supplement such a call with a proposition to deal with exact 3 letter matches that have already been delegated -- ".com" comes to mind. Also, in view of potential future changes to the ISO 3166-1 list.
In other words, if we make ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 letter codes available, how should we deal with the Union of the Comoros' then right to and/or potential desire for (the already delegated) ".com" gTLD?
Thanks,
Justine Chew -----
On Sun, 12 Aug 2018 at 02:44, Maureen Hilyard <maureen.hilyard@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi everyone
If you have been following the discussions in WT5 you will see that there has been a lot of controversy over the GNSO consensus process on Country and Territory Names and how best to come to a decision on each of the key issues that are being discussed.
With regards to an agreement over 3-letter country codes, Carlos Raul Gutierrez has proposed the following suggestion to help this process move forward, I believe we should consider his proposal as a reasonable compromise considering all the discussion that has taken place and send our support (or otherwise) to our ALAC co-Chair. The ALAC views could be coordinated by the CPWG leads but will be required *by Tuesday??*.
*This is urgent, as it appears that consensus calls will be received by the co-Chairs during the week and as they will have to prepare for the next WT5 meeting on the 22nd, it would be good to include an ALAC opinion as well. *
“Dear Annebeth,
As you have heard me (too) many times before, I admire the track record of preceding, clearly focused public interest 3 letter geo-TLDs, like the ones from Catalonia in Spain, Brittany's in France, and Serbia's 3 letter TLDs
Now that I re-stated my rationale for such a clear-cut public interest case in an email to Rosalia (for geo use ONLY, accessible -i.e. cheap- and non-profit), I hereby submit to the WT my final revised language suggestion, which is ONLY applicable for 3-Letter codes. It would substitute the following final paragraph in the relevant section which deals with 3-Letter codes: “*The SubPro may want to consider recommending whether any future application/revision/delegation process to be established (either generic or restricted to the Geographic categories only), should determine if, when, and how specific interested parties, such as relevant public international, national or sub-national public authorities, may apply for country and territory names*"
My suggestion for a FORWARD looking option is:
“*ICANN may only consider applications of ISO 3166-1 Alpha 3 Letter Codes submitted by relevant governmental authorities, ccTLD managers and public interest/public benefit entities*.”
This paragraph is, in my view, a sensible part of a forward-looking recommendation that could go ahead with broader WT consensus. And if it does not, please make sure it is recorded as an objection against a permanent restriction of the delegation of the ISO 3-Letter list.
Thanks to all,
Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez" _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing listCPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG@icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg