Dear Vanda, thanks a lot for this report. The ccNSO by design and own decision does very little policy development for the whole set of its members, under the premise that each ccTLD manager is independent and subject to their own rules, the laws and public policies in their countries, etc. This, by the way, leaves the At-Large users largely at the mercy of whether and how each ccTLD manager operates multistakeholder mechanisms to determine its policies and operations. So, it is indeed remarkable that the ccNSO has engaged in a policy development. In this case, it should be of particular concern to At-Large users in smaller, insular states, which in the evolution of their post-colonial histories may still face mergers, dissolutions, and moves to either consolidate or split the management of the government of their territories. If this leads to changes in the ISO-3166 list, it will have deep implications for them. For example, the double life under American and European participation in ICANN may be terminated. So thanks for being there with your watchful eye! Alejandro Pisanty ________________________________ De: lac-discuss-en <lac-discuss-en-bounces@atlarge-lists.icann.org> en nombre de Vanda Scartezini <vanda@scartezini.org> Enviado: miércoles, 28 de junio de 2023 09:12 a. m. Para: lac-discuss-en@icann.org Asunto: Re: [lac-discuss-en] Submission Board Report Dear Lacralo friends, see below the links to the final report from ccPDP3 RM https://ccnso.icann.org/en/about/statements.htm The Board Report will be posted on the WG page: https://ccnso.icann.org/en/workinggroups/pdp-review-mechanism.htm I have been work with this group since the beginning of this work. Kisses to all