*Dear WT5 Participants:I trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61.For the record and with a view to the cancellation of the conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, I write this note to recall some points made during the discussion on Wednesday morning, 14 March.For the Subsequent procedures PDP to go forward without delay, we need to make progress on a new geo.TLD policy for “full names” quickly. Based on previous efforts (like the previous policy efforts of the ccNSO, the ccNSO-GNSO-CWG that followed, and the efforts within the GAC) it is not advisable to pursue the idea that the 2012 Applicant Guide Book (AGB) reserved list of geo.names (based on codes dependent on outside reference lists) as a default. That text (AGB) failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf). First , I want to point the the 2-letter code ISO 3166-1 list was used to DELEGATE ccTLDs (not to RESERVE from delegation). The first registered ccTLDs were .us <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.us>, .uk <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.uk>, and .il <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.il>, all registered in 1985. But It has taken until today to (not) make a decision on the 3 letter alpha codes, which have been used to restrict delegation of TLDs. In the meantime other geography related top level domains have been successfully delegated, like is the case for the city TLDs (.Berlin, .London, .Rio, etc.) as well as some cultural communities like .cat, .bzh and even new countries like .srb. Obviously, as more exception emerge to reference codes dependent on outside reference lists there is a growing space for conflict. There remains a tremendous and growing inconsistency in the case of the 3-letter codes on the ISO 3166-1 list, which served as basis for another ineffective reservation during the last round. For that reason I suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list , so that an effective “full.geo.name <http://full.geo.name>” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds.With a few exceptions, short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion . For that reason I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities prior to or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent , we should assume that there is demand out there for differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities or even some ccTLD managers themselves. So instead of the 3-letter codes of the ISO-3166-1 list remaining reserved, the WT5 should analyze the possibility of using subsequent rounds and the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (as in the case for city names) for the ISO list 3 letter codes.This option to delegate/register the whole 3-letter code ISO list, opens the space for other public interest parties to apply for a few IGO/IGNO specific 3 letter codes that also have been reserved (for example, IOC, WHO, IMF) and would leave all other 3 letter permutation outside the ISO list and IGO/INGOs open for creative applications in the generic domain space. A back of the envelope calculation shows that offering to delegate the first group and taking into account the existing 3 letter codes will amount to a total of less than 500 TLDs. That leaves more than 20’000 possible permutation open for evaluation as new gTLDs.WT5 should seriously consider a delegation process for the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list (as opposed to maintaining an incongruent reservation list) under the following assignment conditions of Right of First Refusal 1. Pertinent country or territory Authority or Government (as per previously delegated ISO 2 Letter list) that a has used the 3 letter classification for other public interest purposes (passports); 2. Then as per analogy to the delegation of City names in the previous round, subject to approval by the respective legal entity managing the region, any of the following:- Linguistic, ethnic, cultural, indigenous minorities or peoples in pertinent country or territory, substate peoples or national minorities, Indigenous and Tribal Peoples. Other users of 3-letter codes for not-for profit motives, like for example the local Olympic Authority or Committee of pertinent country or territory - Local ccTLD authority or manager of pertinent country or territory as long as it is based on a not-for-profit structure- etc.3. IGO-INGOs from the reserved names list that may or may not overlap with the ISO listIf none of the above applies for delegation, or if all of the above are found to have refused to apply, then the 3 Letter code in question AND ANY ADDITIONAL 3 letter permutation so far not reserved, shall be treated as an gTLD under section.....open to any applicant....* I hope this extended comment will be added to the record Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA