[discuss] Possible approaches to solving "problem no. 1"

Mon Feb 17 15:45:59 UTC 2014

At 13:20 17/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
>I am not advocating new additions to 3166, and if there are 
>additions to 3166 that are not in keeping with its original 
>framework, the appearance of a code in the 3166 table may not be 
>enough to justify the allocation of a new ccTLD.
>
>Steve

This is what I am saying: VGNICs can document them if EZOP uses ISO 
3166 as their referent to produce HomeRoots. This might lead to 
competition if some people dedicate a class to include societalTLDs.

This is not my responsibility, but I suppose it would be better if 
ISO 3166 was keeping concentrating the internet codes rather than 
another international agency like ITU (mobile related information) or 
UNESCO or a private business organization like ICC or GS1, etc. i.e. 
maintenance agencies where ICANN is not a member?

The FCC/Tymnet-Postel-ICANN solution has hold well until now. May be 
time to adapt ICP-1 http://www.icann.org/en/resources/cctlds/delegation
to consider Keith's remarks and the probable emergence of VGNs and 
the HomeRoot experimentation.

M G

>On Feb 17, 2014, at 7:14 AM, Michel Gauthier <mg at telepresse.com> wrote:
>
> > At 02:47 17/02/2014, Steve Crocker wrote:
> >> I think the only way to accomplish what you have in mind is to 
> to work within the ICANN framework to bring RFC 1591 ideas into to 
> the GNSO policy framework.  I have no idea whether this might be feasible.
> >
> > I understand this is where VGNICs bring an incentive?
> >
> > M G