Tony,
Are you in a position to provide more history? Obviously some root
entries have been allocated on need rather than rigorous logic, others
omitted due to controversy or lack of interest. For those who want their
DNS purely geographic and effectively jurisdictional,, for example Veijo
Heiskanen, rather than the extant historical ARPA(?) defence network
overlaid with the generics and then ccTLDs, this might provide a guide
to what some might call the multidimensionality of the current root code
structure.
Whilst appreciating that it is the ISO maintenance agency in Berlin and
not IANA or ICANN which sets forth this code structure, it would be of
great interest to establish whether there are other reserve elements in
the 900 series numerical codes which have been allotted, and also
(i) why Ascension Island when it is already covered by St Helena,. to
take your example? Convenience?
(ii) what formal criteria ISO use for deciding whether an area is an
independent territory or not , i.e Gaza Strip, West Bank?
(iii) whether Palmyra Atoll (for example) could expect, as a private,
independent (?) territory to apply successfully for DNS ccTLD status?
(iv) why only Anglo-saxon, French and Norwegian islands are listed, when
there are many others not (i.e. Spratly Islands)?
(v) what happened to the Neutral Zone, listed in the ISO country code
list, but not allotted DNS? Plenty of people live there.
(vi) whether arguably dispossessed territories or countries such as
St.Barth�lemy, Scotland, Tibet, Baffin Island, Bassas da India, Europa
Island etc have any voice in the process and whether they might
reasonably expect the consideration East Timor has received?
(vii) who came up with the gb/uk distinction and why it has not been
resolved?
(viii) whether in view of the use of this country list by the above
countries to list their dependent territories, it is not incumbent upon
the ISO to invite equally the inclusion of others?
(ix) whether the residents of the McDonald Islands heard about what they
missed?
(x) whether it was the complex nature of national sovereignty in the UK
that lead to the inclusion of the Isle of Man, Guernsey, Jersey etc, as
self-governing states, where other countries, who disallow
self-government, subsume such entities under one central sovereignty?
(xi) whether .su is still operational?
(xii) whether the US UM code is inclusive of all US territories outside
mainland US other than those named in the root, eg Perto Rico?
(xiii) what other reserved ISO codes are available for use?
(xiv) whether any consideration has ever been given in past attempts to
rationalise or justify to the competing, and not necessarily
considerable claims of, to take a handful at random, Alaska, Andaman
Islands, Aqabah, Archipelago Juan Fernandez, Azores, Baffin Island,
Balearics, Ballery Islands, Banks Island, Bonin Islands, Bornholm,
Campbell Island, Canary Islands, Celebes, Chatham Islands, Corfu,
Corsica, Crete, Daitoshoto, Ellesmere Island, Franz Josef Land, Gotland,
Greek Islands, Isla de Misdai, Isla de San Andrei, Isla San Ambrosio,
Isla San Felix, Islas Marquesas, Kermadec Islnads, King George Island,
Kuril Islands, Lakeshadweep, Macquarie Island, Madeira Islands, Malabo,
Mindanao, New Siberian Islands, Nicobar Islands, Novaya Zemlya, Okinawa,
Okinotai, Orkney, Palewan, Peter 1 Island, Prince Edward Island, Quebec,
Rockall, Ryuku Islands, Sakhalin, Sardinia, Scott Island, Severnaya
Zemlya, Shetland, Snares Islands, Society Islands, Socotra, South Orkney
Islands, Tasmania, the Alands, the Aleutians, the Aral Sea Island, the
Pulaus, Victoria, Volcano Islands, Wrangel Island, Zanzibar, most of
which can make some claim for inclusion on a similar basis to
territories or countries already included. Obviously, for many the
opposite case can be made as well.
This is not to include such as Ashmore and Cartier Islands, Baker
Island, Clipperton Island, Coral Sea Islands, Glorioso Islands, Howland
Island, Jarvis Island, Johnston Atoll, Juan de Nova Island, Kingman
Reef, Midway Islands, Navassa Island, Paracel Islands Tromelin Island,
Wake Island etc, for the reasons given above.
Apologies for length and perhaps obtuseness, however I believe that
anyone who has a reasonable answer will be able to determine more easily
the realistic, rather than idealistic or strictly logical, way decisions
have been made in the past, and are likely to be made in the future in
the area.
MM
"A.M. Rutkowski" wrote:
> The root zone file presently contains 251 domains.
> However ZR. is transitioning to CD. (Zaire to Dem Rep Congo),
> so there are effectively only 250.
>
> ISO 3166-1:1997 as of 7 Apr 99 contains 238 codes.
>
> One of the 238 is not contained in the root zone -
> North Korea.
>
> The 13 other domains in the root zone are:
>
> ARPA.
> AC. Ascension Island
> COM.
> GOV.
> GG. Guernsey
> INT.
> IM. Isle of Man
> JE. Jersey
> MIL.
> NET.
> ORG.
> SU. Soviet Union
> UK. United Kingdom
>
> Query: since ccTLDs are by definition tied
> to 3166-1, what are AC, GG, IM, JE, SU, and UK ?
>
> --tony
