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

[Hugh Dierker <hdierker2204@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thank you Elisabeth,
   
  Now this I can understand. One question though. Did .CS ever cause a technical problem or just a social/economic/policy type headache?
   
  Eric

Elisabeth Porteneuve <Elisabeth.Porteneuve@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
  
Roberto,

The "CS" example you quote is precisely the big lesson, which have 
been learnt by many.

The "CS" have been re-allocated by ISO 3166/MA in 2003, 10 years 
after Czechoslovakia split-up, in accordance with that time rules 
for re-use of discontinued codes. This reallocation woke up all 
impacted organizations, ICANN and ISO 3166/MA met together to 
understand better their point of view, and subsequently ICANN was 
invited to became one of 10 voting members of ISO 3166/MA. Since 
then ISO 3166/MA added a rule that any discontinued code cannot 
be re-allocated for 50 years. 
In their wisdom, or in their conservative approach, the "Serbia and 
Montenegro's" community never asked for .CS ccTLD delegation, 
they have been using .YU instead. 

Actually, "YU" is an excellent example we should look at. Assume 
the ".YU" removed from the root in 2003, replaced by ".CS", and 
splitting up in 2006 into ".RS" and ".ME". Disaster for stability, 
don't you agree? Sometimes moving slowly can help.

Today's ISO 3166/MA rule of 50 years makes quite sure that the "CS" 
case will not repeat soon. The ISO 3166/MA is well aware about 
3 discontinued codes still in use at Internet root, ".SU", ".YU", 
and ".TP", not withstanding the 50 years delay. As long as ICANN 
fulfils its duties of active member of ISO 3166/MA, we may expect 
no sudden clash in allocation of codes. 


Kind regards,

Elisabeth Porteneuve
Expert member to the French group of ISO 3166/MA




> From: "Roberto Gaetano" 
> Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2007 13:56:13 +0100
> 
> 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 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 ),
> 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
> 


 	 
---------------------------------
Looking for earth-friendly autos? 
 Browse Top Cars by "Green Rating" at Yahoo! Autos' Green Center.