[lac-discuss-en] My intervention on the Mic during our ICANN 61 meeting

[Carlos Raul Gutierrez]

*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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/pipermail/lac-discuss-en/attachments/20180322/589f4651/attachment-0001.html>