Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

I agree with what Josh says below, especially the point about .EU taking a long
time and the point about the need to update and reconsider IANA practices in the
light of new developments.

I still think, however, think we needed to have a *good faith* meta-discussion
about how such initiatives fit into the charter of WG-C and DNSO. The
articulation between these initiatives is not self-evident, and given the
newness and potential fragility of DNSO processes we have to be somewhat
self-conscious about the role of this WG. Hopefully we can have these
discussions in a constructive manner, and of course such discussions should not
distract us from our ongoing work on other types of new TLDs. So it does seem
appropriate to lay it aside now and that is what I intend to do.

Josh Elliott wrote:

> Lastly, recognize that
> .EU is the first regional TLD applicant, and ICANN may want to include such
> TLDs in a different application process.  Let's be real here.  Jon (and
> others) adopted the ISO 3166 list because it seemed like the right thing to
> do, but that was a long time ago, and things have definately changed.  Maybe
> it is time to move from the mentality that everything on the 3166-1 list
> should automatically have a code, to something a bit more developed than a
> list.
>