RE: [ga] Haiti the Internet and ICANN

["Debbie Garside" <debbie@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Jeff

I did a bit of research into this a year or so ago in relation to a ccTLD
for Wales (and Scotland) so I think I can answer your questions.  It has
nothing to do with religion, favouritism or dubious ICANN decisions but
rather to do with the rules for inclusion within ISO 3166-1.

ISO 3166-1 is based on the United Nations Standard Country or Area Codes for
Statistical Use (otherwise known as UN M.49).

I can remember having some conversations with ISO Central Secretariat at
this time and the upshot was that whilst it is recognised that both Scotland
and Wales are Countries in their own right they also form part of the
geopolitical entity otherwise known as The United Kingdom of Great Britain
(hence we have UK and GB - UK is an "exceptionally reserved code" within ISO
3166-1). However, there is some rule or other within UN M.49 on allocation
and it is all to do with whether the entity is geographically attached, in
our instance to the UK; hence we have country codes for the Falkland
Islands, Guernsey, Jersey and Isle of Man and not for Scotland and Wales.
NI is a different kettle of fish and the politics are ongoing.  Basically if
there is water between the entities they can have their own UN M.49 and ISO
3166-1 code.

I believe the reason why the Vatican/Holy See has a Country Code is because
it is a political administration in its own right and not attached to any
other geopolitical entity;  in other words, it is a landlocked sovereign
city-state with a UN M.49 code.

As far as I can see ICANN are following ISO 3166-1 and UN M.49 in the
allocation of ccTLDs.  Makes sense to me.

Best regards

Debbie






> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx 
> [mailto:owner-ga@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Jeff Williams
> Sent: 04 July 2007 05:05
> To: Hugh Dierker
> Cc: ga; icann board address; icann staff; vinton g. cerf
> Subject: Re: [ga] Haiti the Internet and ICANN
> 
> Dr. Dierker and all,
> 
>  Well let se now, the Vatican has it's own ccTLD or some call 
> it an sTLD = Special TLD, yet no other religious deity has 
> one.  Isn't that a bit odd?  Also Scotland applied for a 
> ccTLD and was denied, remember those debates?  However 
> Ireland has it's own ccTLD, doesn't that dichotomy strike you 
> as rather odd as well?  And .Iq has been assigned to Iraq yet 
> has no functioning NIC or NOC, even odder still?  
> And now we have the dubiously illustrious Haiti getting it's 
> own ccTLD granted by the omnipotent ICANN Bod.
> 
>   I am very sure the Scots are not very pleased and may now 
> start to wonder if the Vatican is not happy with how they 
> practice Catholicism or that ICANN has all along viewed them 
> as blasphemers in comparison to the peoples of Haiti.  Now I 
> am a Jew, and even in the new testament we are gods chosen 
> people, yet ICANN has not yet seem fit to bestow upon us our 
> own ccTLD or sTLD.  Why is that I wonder, is it because we 
> have offended our Catholic brothers in some very egregious 
> way, or are we not deserving of such a bestowance by the 
> omnipotent ICANN?
> Are we worse than the world recognized criminal state of 
> Haiti?  Is it because we are allied in the state of Israel in 
> a struggle against those whom would seek to destroy us and 
> the state of Israel?  If it is any of these reasons why than 
> we ask for the aid of the holy se for his assistance in 
> recognizing us to the omnipotent Bod of ICANN to grant us our 
> deliverance and allow us our own ccTLD or sTLD.
> 
>   So now Dr. Dierker, are you and Debbie beginning to get the 
> drift here, or need I go further?  Is this not an 
> illustration of why ICANN Directors desperately need to be 
> directly elected by any and all interested stakeholders, 
> users and/or registrants?  I mean really now, Scotland isn't 
> deserving of a ccTLD and Haiti is?  England is deserving of 2 
> ccTLD's, .GB and .UK and Ireland with .IR and yet again, 
> Scotland is not?  Come on now folks, wake up and smell the 
> coffee or tea if you prefer, and recognize ICANN sense it's 
> inception practices Selective Censorship in one of it most 
> ugly forms.  Any form of imposed Censorship is wrong.  I 
> reject such behavior or concept, I hope all of you will also.
> 
> Hugh Dierker wrote:
> 
> >    I have seen too many instances where it was the massive 
> influx and 
> > outflux of information that actually changed a rather dire 
> situation.
> > Information Technology should target areas of destitution and civil 
> > wrong (don't ask; Soviet Union, South Africa, Vietnam and Womens 
> > rights throughout the Middle East) Also I do not believe it is the 
> > call of non-transparent and non-representative 
> organizations to decide 
> > when and where we engage in embargos of information - next 
> they would 
> > embargo all red states/or would that be blue? Education(IT), 
> > medicines, food and water should not be part of a bargaining chip.
> >
> >   But it is fun to sit around and decide who should and 
> should not get 
> > the internet. I would knock out all politicians and parties but not 
> > individuals and then of course all religions, except mine.
> >
> >   Eric
> >
> >
> 
> Regards,
> 
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 134k members/stakeholders 
> strong!) "Obedience of the law is the greatest freedom" -
>    Abraham Lincoln
> 
> "Credit should go with the performance of duty and not with 
> what is very often the accident of glory" - Theodore Roosevelt
> 
> "If the probability be called P; the injury, L; and the 
> burden, B; liability depends upon whether B is less than L 
> multiplied by
> P: i.e., whether B is less than PL."
> United States v. Carroll Towing  (159 F.2d 169 [2d Cir. 1947] 
> ===============================================================
> Updated 1/26/04
> CSO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security 
> IDNS. div. of Information Network Eng.  INEG. INC.
> ABA member in good standing member ID 01257402 E-Mail 
> jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx  Registered Email addr with the USPS 
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827
> 
>