Re: [dns-wg] retiring old ccTLDs

[Jefsey_Morfin jefsey@localhost]

Dear Doug,
Experience shown (with EU representatives being present on the list) 
that "EU" was not considered by the

supposed reviewer of the IANA Language Subtags and Extension 
Registries as part of ISO 3166 codes and therefore the leading 
economic language "en-EU" could not be documented along with the IANA 
registry.

The implications of your kind of points IANA/ISO respective weight 
and importance and the resulting implications on the DNS root(s) and 
IDNs are key questions right now in Athens. I understand that you are here.

May I suggest we try to spot one another and quickly discuss this.
jfc


At 20:45 31/10/2006, Doug Barton wrote:

>Randy Bush wrote:
> >> Now I know that you THINK you want it, because you want to make a case
> >> for preserving YOUR ccTLD. But you really don't want to open that can
> >> of worms.
> >
> > your mail system seems broken.  it has regurgitated an old mail.  one
> > pre the issuance of EU
>
>As Kim pointed out, EU is "in the list" as exceptionally reserved,
>just like UK and AC. If you'd like to have a discussion about not
>including any exceptionally reserved names in the root, the ccNSO
>and/or the ccNSO-IANA working group are probably the best forums for
>that. If you choose to have that discussion, it's probably worth
>noting that it is not uncommon for names to move from "exceptionally
>reserved" status to "officially assigned" status, as has happened over
>the last two years for GG, IM, and JE. Sure it would be nice if the
>world was simple, but it's not.
>
>On the other hand, SU has specifically been deleted by ISO, hence the
>ccTLD needs to be deleted as well (just like ZR was back in the day).
>For that matter, TP is way overdue for being deleted, as the TL domain
>has been up and running for a long time now. I think we can cut YU
>some slack until the ME and SE domains are up and running, but then
>that one needs to go too.
>
>My point is, we actually do have a policy here, and the SU operators
>are running their operation with deliberate disregard for it. If you
>don't like the policy, there are places to debate it, however since
>this isn't one of them, I think I'll leave it at that.
>
>Doug
>
>--
>     If you're never wrong, you're not trying hard enough