On Sun, Aug 12, 2018 at 12:14 AM 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.”

+1. And, as Alpha3 Letter Codes become a new stream of ccTLDs, ICANN could impress upon the relevant local government authorities and ccTLD managers to agree on a common minimum set of DNS rules, conventions and best practices in the operation of this new stream of ccTLDs, as distinct from the 2 characters country codes, some operated well, some not so well, some in tune with the way the DNS works, some pulled in a different direction. Governments are right in considering ccTLDs as their space, but in the past some ccTLDs in some countries were transferred to external entities within or out of their countries, some ccTLD went out of control irrespective of who operated them; It became difficult for ICANN perhaps even promote Security and Stability measures such as DNSSEC. If alpha3 codes are deemed as a new stream of ccTLDs, it then becomes an opportunity for ICANN to delegate them as a more integrated TLD class within the DNS, somewhere between the somewhat detached 2 character ccTLD and the fully coordinated gTLDs. An example result of such an approach would be an alpha3 application criteria that might look for technical expertise or a contract with an accredited Registry Service Provider with relevant ccTLD experience; while there may be more elaborate criteria, the respective countries may have country specific policies for operation of the alpha3 codes except where such national policies are NOT in sharp contrast with the general principles of the DNS.

Sivasubramanian M

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
_______________________________________________
registration-issues-wg mailing list
registration-issues-wg@atlarge-lists.icann.org
https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg

Sivasubramanian M

Please send all replies to 6.Internet@gmail.com