RE: [ga] is ICANN or is ICANN not?

["Roberto Gaetano" <roberto@xxxxxxxxx>]

I have a simple question for JFC.
 
What should, in your opinion, IANA do in case ISO decides to reallocate SU,
or any one of the codes that have been discontinued and moved to 3166-3?
 
If you think this should not happen, be aware that this has been already the
case for CS, that used to be in 3166-1 as Czekoslowakia, then moved to
3166-3 when the country split in Czech and Slowak Republics, then moved back
to 3166-1 as Serbia and Montenegro, and finally moved in its current
position in 3166-3 only after the split of Serbia and Montenegro in two
separate countries (with separate codes).
 
And what are the consequences of whatever decision is taken on the integrity
and stability?
 
To me these questions are far more important than how often, and on which
subject, IANA is in contact with whom. But that's only my own opinion and
preference.
 
Cheers,
Roberto
 
 


  _____  

From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
JFC Morfin
Sent: 25 January 2007 15:37
To: Kim Davies
Cc: ga
Subject: [ga] is ICANN or is ICANN not?


Sorry for the typo, you will have probably corrected by yourself. In the 4th
paragraph, please read the first ISO 3166 as ISO 3166-1. Corrected in the
text below. jfc

-----

Dear Kim,
I thank you for your rather interesting "this was not the question: this is
my response" mail series. I think we can now conclude that the ICANN/IANA,
with NTIA support, is preparing to replace ISO 3166 by the non-ISO 3166
interoperable IANA/SER (RFC 4646) in order to decide what an e-country is. 

This follows from:

- the fact that ".su" is still in the IANA DNS root file and has not been
changed to ".suhh" as per ISO 3166.

- your constant reference to ISO 3166-1 when RFC 1591 and ICANN and IETF
documents refer to ISO 3166.

- the  <http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-05dec06.htm>
http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-2-05dec06.htm Discussion Paper
on Retiring Country Code Top-Level Domains.

- your description of this discussion: "this is about retiring codes that
are no longer active in the ISO 3166 standard, and the appropriate mechanism
to work toward the goal. There is no aim to turn off active TLDs, but rather
to ensure there is a responsible and orderly transition."

- your comment "We're generally in touch with NTIA every other day or so.
They are fully informed of our work in this area"

- you wrote "We have no desire to change the adherence to ISO 3166 [].
However, it could be in the fullness of time that the community agrees to
use something else to decide what constitutes a valid country code"

- the IETF, which is to "influence the way  people design, use, and manage
the Internet" has indeed published for the community the RFC 4646,
installing the IANA LSE Registry with non ISO 3166 interoperable rules of
the management of country codes.

ISO 3166 is the most used standard. The stability of the Internet and
international applications has been based on it for 30 years now (1978).
This has been endorsed by Jon Postel (RFC 920, 1984, and RFC 1591, 1994,
ccTLD Memo #1, 1999) and by ICANN (ICP-1). Code elements are never retired,
but are rather moved to part 3 (ISO 3166-3) and the identifier is changed
into an alpha4. RFC 4646 does not follow that policy. 

No one would be foolish enough to endanger the stability provided by ISO
3166. Except if your "fullness of the time" means when the IANA LSE Registry
has become the de facto new normative axis of the world, supporting IETF
standards that will possibly be based upon compatible US patented
applications. 

This Internet community's "fullness of the time" would then fully know a
global US Internet (as per the Congress resolution and Tunis agreement),
controlled through the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxxxxxxx mailing list, using US
patent based non interoperable standards (
<http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4342> http://blogs.zdnet.com/BTL/?p=4342 ),
and deployed through IANA/LSER endorsed ccNSO ccTLDs.

Such a scheme, which is an alternative to the IGF (because of the lack of
interoperability of the used country codes), could only ultimately lead to
an Internet split. This would be to the detriment of everyone, starting with
the US Industry that would lose its international interoperability.

Is ICANN or is ICANN not engaged in this? 

I know you do not want to answer this. I wonder why.
All the best,
jfc


   <http://i.msgtag.com/anvukkdjvuCaefmxAbl/vbA/lr/wret/nf/aj.gif>