Thanks for the invitation to today's CWG meeting which I attended as an Observer member of the GAC and which enlightened my understanding of the work of the group. I think the options paper is an appropriate way to record and structure the principles, findings and recommendations of the group and I would like to submit a few comments I was not able to make today before time ran out. 1. I support the idea of including in the options paper certain guiding principles for formulating ultimate recommendations e.g. standards-based references for county or territory names. I also advocate making or keeping "sufficiently clear differentiation" as one of these principles. 2. Two letter codes at the TLD level are universally recognised as country codes and this should remain so, notwithstanding a few instances where they might have been used for purposes other than country identification e.g. .TV. To do otherwise would be to diminish the branding efforts of the great majority of ccTLDs, particularly ones with strong brands like .ca, .br and .mx to name a few. 3. Incumbency has its privileges. The 2-letter TLDs as country codes is a part of the Internet eco-system that is widely understood and functioning well. It is quite likely that commercial interests with 2-letter brands could find (and already have) commercially acceptable and distinctive alternatives to a 2-letter TLD. 4. In making policy it is wise to keep in mind the average Internet user who is not as well informed as persons involved in ICANN processes. Regards, Nigel Cassimire Telecommunications Specialist [CTU Logo Full Name] 4 Mary Street, St. Clair, Port of Spain,Trinidad and Tobago. Tel: (+1 868) 628-0281 ext. 235 |Fax: (+1 868) 622-6523 |E-mail:nigel.cassimire@ctu.int<mailto:nigel.cassimire@ctu.int> Website: http://ctu.int<http://ctu.int/>
