<div dir="ltr">Hi Evan,<br><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Sep 23, 2015 at 10:56 AM, Evan Leibovitch <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com" target="_blank">evanleibovitch@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr">At its core, this is about putting public property (ie, </p><div style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">an </div>existing international standard) in pr<div style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">oprietary</div> hands</div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Is it? I'm not seeing it. It DOES mean that 3 letter codes could be used as gTLD (the ccTLD manager could apply as well and use it as a psuedo-ccTLD if they wanted). </div><div><br></div><div>Nation States do not OWN the codes, or the standard (ISO). Nation States have, in theory, asserted authority over 2 letter ccTLDs, but in practice that hasn't always been the case in practice.</div><div><br></div><div>The Tunis Agenda that asserted sovereignty is a non-binding agreement.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">... like having a<div style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline"> troll</div> trying to assert copyright on the flags of the world.<p></p>
<p dir="ltr"></p><div style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">The fact that there are exceptions to reservation of the standard (.com, .uk) does not negate the validity of the standard going forward. Going after it will simply diminish trust in ICANN even below its current awful levels, and at some point this diminishing trust will affect DNS stability.</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>red-herring IMHO. </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><br><p></p><p dir="ltr">As for the GACophobia...</p></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>I am not GAC phobic, I just want them to understand their role and not assert more authority than they have on paper.</div><div><br></div><div>In practice, they have done end-arounds to implement the blocking of thousands of strings at the second level without appropriate GNSO action as just one example of how they would like to have more power.</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><p dir="ltr"> </p><div style="font-family:'trebuchet ms',sans-serif;display:inline">f</div>ine. As Olivier suggests, punt it to the ccNSO first and see what they think. That's critical feedback to this issue. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why? The ccNSO doesn't have ALL cc's as Member's nor do they have authority over 3 letter codes. This would be a radical shift done without a PDP.</div><div><br></div><div> </div></div>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Cheers,<br><br>McTim<br>"A name indicates what we seek. An address indicates where it is. A route indicates how we get there." Jon Postel</div>
</div></div>