Hi,
Page 21 the three preferences how alpha-3 codes could be handled:
1) support for opening all ISO 3166-1 alpha-3 codes to
eligiblity as gTLDs (eligibility is misspelled - and the sentence makes no sense! Probably meant as: "...... to be eligible as gTLDs"?)
I do not see any more the option that has already garnered a LOT of support: Treating the 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 codes like ALL other designators in the ISO 3166 (e.g. “BAR” or “TATA”): In the existing AG for ALL 3166 listed elements there is a requirement
that the relevant Government authority has to sign a letter of non-objection!
So I suggest we either add to 1) that OF COURSE the already established AG requirement for a letter of non-objection would be triggered for alpha-3 codes as well!
Or we have a 4th preference.
Indeed: Annex D provides for FOUR possibilities discussed by the SOs/ACs.
On page 22 it says:
“Supporting to open all 3-character codes as gTLDs:
• There is no sovereign or other ownership right of governments in country or territory names, including ISO 3166-1 codes,
so there is no legal basis for government veto power on allocation of these codes as gTLDs”
Not true! The AG has a provision whereby ALL ISO 3166 elements need a letter of non-objection of the Government! See “.bar” or “.tata”! Obviously if already a tiny mini municipality like the TATA region (15,000 people, all desert, no
industry, but listed in ISO 3166) requires such a letter then OF COURSE a 3 letter ISO 3166 alpha 3 code requires it as well!
Thanks,
Alexander Schubert
-----Original Message-----
From: ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org [mailto:ctn-crosscom-bounces@icann.org] On Behalf Of Emily Barabas
Sent: Wednesday, January 25, 2017 10:26 PM
To: Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl>
Cc: ctn-crosscom@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment
Dear Jaap,
Thank you for your review and feedback. Staff will review the formatting and content of the frames.
Kind regards,
Emily
On 25/01/17 04:48, "Jaap Akkerhuis" <jaap@NLnetLabs.nl> wrote:
Emily Barabas writes:
> Please find attached a revised version of the CWG-UCTN Interim Paper.
> This version incorporates language to reflect a lack of consensus on
> recommendation 3.
>
>
> Kindly provide any final revisions or comments on the Interim Paper by
> Friday 3 February.
Dear Emily,
I did a quick scan and noticed that something went with the two
"Frames" about the ISO 3166. They now look as a single one to me. But
apart from that, the first one seemed to have a garbled sentences here
and there. Note the start of the second section, to quote:
The ISO body responsible for the standard 3166 is the
Technical Committee 46, systems etc. and as non-current,
dependencies, and other areas of particular geopolitical
interest (ISO/TC 46/WG2).
And there are more of these.
I will have a nore close read later, but these things really needs to
be clean up.
Regards,
jaap
_______________________________________________
Ctn-crosscom mailing list