You are right, I did misunderstand you. In ISO3166-1 Comoros has been assigned the 3 ltr code com. Oops, can't undo that I'm afraid. Carlos' proposal offers some respite. At least Comoros would not be competing with a brand for whatever 3 ltr string they choose.
Marita
On 8/12/2018 6:15 PM, Justine Chew wrote:
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 <mailto: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 <mailto: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 <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.org <mailto:CPWG@icann.org>
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg
_______________________________________________
CPWG mailing list
CPWG@icann.orghttps://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg_______________________________________________
GTLD-WG mailing list
GTLD-WG@atlarge-lists.icann.orghttps://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg
Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs