These are my thoughts on the issue of ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes:
I too believe that
WT5 is fully competent to deal with the issue of whether, when and how strings identical to the existing ISO 3166 3-letter codes could be applied for and delegated, though at the rate WT5 is going, the position may very well end in a recommendation that it be chartered for deliberation by (yet) a(nother) GNSO PDP WG.
Notwithstanding,
3-letter strings on ISO 3166-1 standardI don't believe it is desirable for any un-delegated 3-letter strings currently on the ISO 3166-1 standard to remain unavailable for application in the next round. However, I am not convinced that an outright claim can be made that "there is no "tradition" of
ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes being used for top level domain names connected with the related countries and territories". Jorge Cancio suggested that Switzerland does (in some way) and also some of these codes overlap with others, eg those used by the IOC in the Olympic Games.
In any case, I take the view that by virtue of ICANN being represented on the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency, there should be at the very least, some moral obligation by ICANN to recognise and treat (in the first instance) all such 3-letter strings which exactly match the ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes as a representation of the corresponding assigned country.
I have also noted that exceptions need to be considered -- as in the case of the Union of Comoros, for which ".com" is no longer available -- for which an alternative 3-letter string should be made available for application by applicants who either represent the Union of Comoros or which received letters of support/non-objection from the Union's government should they wish to apply for a 3-letter string for a purpose associated with the Union. This exception would also need to be made available for any country that is put onto an updated ISO 3166-1 standard, where the assigned 3-letter code is no longer available.
As for 3-letter codes which also have generic meanings or said to be subject to lost opportunities, I think 3-letter code country designations should be prioritised -- think of them as "superlative" special nouns. So as an eg .IOT, would be a "superlative" special noun of the British Indian Ocean Territory, superlative to the special noun of The Internet of Things. In other words, country names trumps everything else, and accordingly, the concept of intended use does not apply.
As to who should be allowed to apply, in sharing concerns for terms which have not been defined by Carlos per se, I too am concerned about who is meant by "public interest/public benefit entities"; that could be any entity, as Greg suggests, which claims to act in public interest/public benefit. In this respect, on using the relatively successful cases of city name gTLD applications as inspiration, I don't see the harm in opening up application to anyone/any entity whereupon the "
relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" can also apply and if there is contention, then curative mechanisms already in place kick in to assist in resolution of such contention. In the same breath, if an entity which is not the "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager" applies, then that application should be subject to the requirement for a letter or support or non-objection from the relevant government or public authority. This could in my opinion best facilitate the application for 3-letter strings which match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes under a preventive and curative 'safeguards' framework.
Also there is nothing to say that the relevant government or public authority and an applicant cannot arrive to some understanding in respect of the application, including terms and conditions of the gTLD (downstream even) should the application be successful. The kind of partnership framework which Maureen reminded us of is an appealing resolution mechanism. Of course, this would depend on the attitudes of the parties concerned, but don't other things suffer the same fate? Also, the suggestion of time limits for response by a government or public authority is a good one IMO.
Perhaps, to facilitate (if one must insists upon it) a 'prioritisation' of applications by a "relevant government or public authority or ccTLD manager", I wonder if a Sunrise Period would be a feasible option. Possibly a difficult consideration, since application windows are typically tight as it is, not to mention the need for effective pre-launch marketing.
Lastly, I too don't wish to wade into the discussion of 'expanding the territory of ccTLDs' -- it is clear in my mind that all 3-letter strings (whether they match ISO 3166-1 3-letter codes or not) would be treated as gTLDs and not ccTLDs. The realm of ccTLDs remains in the 2-letter sphere.