Dear Leadership of LACRALO, As some of you know, I spent almost 3 years in a CWG ccNSO-GNSO on the use of country and territory names, and we got stuck on the 3 letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list. Last week, during the SubPro WT5 meeting in PR, we also got stuck on that very same list and I almost lost my hope of any progress. But after talks with members of the WT5, including the Swiss GAC rep, the ccTLD managers of Estonia and New Zealand, and the most able ALAC Co-Chair of WT5, I came with some ideas on how to get rid of this stumbling block and continue making progress with a policy for full geo names for the future. In that sense I kindly ask for your comments, additions, corrections and eventual support of the draft motion attached, that I want to add to my comments on the microphone during that session. Of course, I want to submit my comments before the next call which is next week......... Glad to add the names of anyone who supports the motion DRAFT for comments and expression of support Dear WT5 Participants: We trust that all of us have returned home OK from San Juan following ICANN 61. For the record and with a view to our next conference call on 28 March, 05.00 UTC, this is just 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” fast. 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) a relevant default. That text (AGB) effectively failed to address several classes of names that are of significant interest to user communities, represents today a lacunae which gave rise to several disagreements and delays last time around (.amazon, .africa, .persiangulf). 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. 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 region and new countries, like .cat, .bzh and .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 particular case with the 3-letter codes of the ISO 3166-1 list which own the last round served as the basis for another ineffective reservation. For that reason I have suggested during our meeting in ICANN61 that it is important for WT5 to eliminate the restrictions of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list is an important step, so that an effective “full.geo.name” evaluation policy, consistent with modern developments in the DNS space can be developed for subsequent rounds. Short codes/acronyms of the 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list are not “Generic” in the usual ICANN sense of the DNS expansion but for few exceptions. For that reason, I submit this modest draft PROPOSAL TO DELEGATE 3 letter codes to interested Governments and other geo related public interest entities previous or during the next round. Taking the delegation of 2-letter codes to ccTLD managers as a precedent n the mid-80s, we should assume that there is demand out there for the differentiated use of 3 letter ISO 3166-1 list codes, either by Governments, public entities, communities and 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 use the proven evaluation methodology and assigning process of the last round (like 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 (IOC, WHO, IMF) and then leaving 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 will show 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 1. Right of First Refusal To Governments of countries/territories to THEIR 3 Letter Codes (ISO...); 2. Right of Second Refusal al ccTLD manager del país o territorio correspondiente (en PR sería Gauss/PR Top Level Domain, no el Estado Libre Asociado); 3. Right of the Third Refusal to a pertinent linguistic, ethnic, indigenous community or people as said concepts are defined by International Law; as long as they get support from the respective political entities 4. If none of the above show interest in the pertinent 3 Letter Code of the ISO 3166-1, then to any IGO/INGO that has requested protection in the past 5. Finally, if then string shall be an available gTLD for any qualified applicant. Carlos Raúl Gutiérrez ISOC Costa Rica Chapter / ALS Costa Rica skype carlos.raulg +506 8837 7176 ________ Apartado 1571-1000 COSTA RICA