On 4 May 2015, at 3:22, David Conrad wrote: > Patrik, > >>>> Also note that there are ccTLDs allocated for codes that are not >>>> registered in ISO3166 (UK, EU etc). >>> >>> IIUC these two are on the 3166 list as exceptionally reserved codes. >> >> Yes, but not REGISTERED, and that difference is something that created more >> than just a little bit of "excitement" including ISO asking whether ICANN do >> not understand what a registered code is when .EU was allocated. > > Are you using a formal definition of "registered" in this context?
Yes. > Also, I'm curious: was there any "excitement" and/or did ISO ask similar > questions when (say) .AC was created (in 1997, as opposed to .EU, which was > created in 2005, according to IANA's whois)? Not that I know of. > That is, was Jon's (apparent) policy of allocating TLDs for "exceptionally > reserved" codes (a policy continued by ICANN) a source of > "excitement"/questions from ISO or others or was the eyebrow raising just > because ICANN was involved in .EU? What ISO 3166/MA said was that the _only_ difference between the two, and the reason why they reacted on .EU, was that ICANN referred to .EU being reserved as a reason for registration. More below. If ICANN had only been registered EU with reference to what EU themselves had done, that would have been different. Yes, pedantic, but if that is what 3166/MA wants I think they should get that. And at the same time allow ccTLDs to be created more freely. If you understand what I mean. >> I was just after 1. trying to not use the term "country" and 2. pointing out >> a recognition that some ccTLDs are allocated with two character codes which >> are not *registered* in ISO 3166. > > My understanding of the usage of "Exceptionally Reserved" codes is that they > are codes that have been reserved for a particular use at special request of > a national ISO member body, governments or international organizations and > that as such, those codes cannot be used for any other "country". That would > appear to fit the definition of "registered" to me, but I'm unsure what > definition of "register" you're using. Registered is a special table at ISO 3166/MA uses, which are not the "reserved" or "exceptionally reserved". > The point of this pedantism is that RFC 1591 (the basis for using 3166 for > two-letter TLDs as far as I am aware) did not say that only "general purpose" > codes could be used for "ccTLDs", it merely said "the two letter country > codes from ISO-3166". Since ISO defines everything in "ISO-3166-1 Alpha-2" as > a "country code" (even things that are clearly not countries, e.g., UM and > FX), it would seem reasonable to me to simply put country in quotes (with > perhaps a footnote saying the "countries" are more than just countries). According to 3166/MA, _any_ code that people want to use can be used for anything. They *register* what _other_ organizations use. So the sensitivity here is in what direction the pointer is pointing. 3166/MA is specifically reserving things that other organization uses. I.e. 3166/MA want to have an exceptionally reserved code of EU just because ICANN has decided to use EU as a ccTLD. To be able to do that, they do not want ICANN to register a ccTLD of .EU with an argument that 3166/MA has reserved EU. That would end up being a circular reference. A *registration* in 3166/MA on the other hand is something that happens because someone else (UN Statistics Division, UPU or someone) decides to use a code, and 3166/MA decides to actually register the code. That can be referenced by anyone (except the one that have done the registration). I.e. 3166/MA is only acting based on decisions other parties have made, not the other way around. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
