[dns-wg] retiring old ccTLDs

Dear Doug,
Experience shown (with EU representatives being present on the list) 
that "EU" was not considered by the ietf-languages at alvestrand.no 
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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: </ripe/mail/archives/dns-wg/attachments/20061101/3456c157/attachment.html>