From: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org (WG-C-DIGEST) To: wg-c-digest@dnso.org Subject: WG-C-DIGEST V1 #2 Reply-To: Sender: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Errors-To: owner-wg-c-digest@dnso.org Precedence: bulk WG-C-DIGEST Thursday, February 3 2000 Volume 01 : Number 002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 08:14:25 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU At 05:05 AM 2/3/00 , Keith Gymer wrote: >The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet >top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at: >http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm Hi Keith, The questions are those expected. However, it's the surrounding text and footnotes that may raise some concerns - especially for the DNSO which one would expect to be an essential part of this process. 1. The central proposition of the paper is that "...the corresponding [ccTLD] code is a form of unambiguous identification and location of the activity." The term "activity" is not explained. This proposition constitutes the primary underpinning for the EU domain proposal, which asserts that this is desirable "...to ensure the appropriate degree of adherence to European law and policies...." Is it appropriate or even feasible for DNS registration to constitute a form of authentication as the fundamental basis for the application of European law? 2. The paper contradicts itself. It states in Sec. 5 that "this principle [that there should be a tangible relationship between the principle location of the entity concerned and the territorial scope of the ccTLD registry] is respected in practice by all national ccTLD Registries within the EU." This is a patently untrue. Four member countries Austria, Denmark, Luxumbourg, and the United Kingdom do not respect this practice. These four ccTLDs encompass 36% of all the EU ccTLD domains (i.e., SOAs) and 28% of all the EU ccTLD hosts as of the RIPE NCC 18 Jan 00 data. The paper obliquely concedes this fact in footnote 2 by asserting that these four member country ccTLD registries may not be in conformance with European Law and are "under consideration [i.e., being investigated] by the Commission." Is anyone aware of this investigation? 3. The most interesting assertion in the paper is found in footnote 19, to the effect that "ICANN will require in future [sic] that the operators of Internet web pages can be located through the DNS registration system." Is anyone aware of such contemplated action? 4. Another assertion is that "...the DNS has not been expanded or developed consistent with [Internet] growth." Although clearly there could be more new TLDs, is anyone aware that there is a cap on DNS zone files? :-) 5. The CEC has also now asserts that "this [COM] domain ...is in practice predominantly North American." All of the CEC's public arguments for various sorts of actions taken against the administration of the COM domain were based on the CEC's assertion that the domain was intrinsically global. 6. The Paper makes no mention that this same proposal was expressly a part of the CEC Green Paper on Numbering released 20 Nov 1996, but not pursued for the past 3 1/2 years. Then the principal CEC issue was harmonization with their X400 domain name system. - --tony ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:19:11 -0500 From: Harold Feld Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU While I have nothing whatsoever against the EU getting their own TLD, it does raise some procedural questions for this working group and the DNSO generally. By what process is the EU applying for the TLD, and to whom? Can other region/multinational/geographic communities of interest apply? For example, what about a NAFTA TLD? A Central American TLD? How about one for the New England region of the United States, a coherent economic region differentiated from surrounding states through membership in the New England Compact*? I will note this is now the second application in what, three months? by a geographic region that is not technically a "country" for a cc:TLD equivalent (the Palestinian National Authority having applied for its own cc:TLD in advance of "final status talks"). If nothing else, this working group (or the DNSO generally) could well serve ICANN by providing some comments/advice/guidance on establishment of proper channels and procedures. This ad hoc approach does no one any good, and risks engendering confusion and ill-will by those subsequently denied. A bit of planning now has the potential to save a lot of arguing and fights later on. If this working group, and the DNSO generally, are intended as resources for ICANN, it would be appropriate to set up a discussion process and make some recommendations. Harold Feld *The states can make treaties with each other, provided they get the consent of Congress. Article I Sec. 10. Keith Gymer wrote: > The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet > top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at: > http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm > > It is open for public comment for 6 weeks - ie apparently until 15 March > 2000 > > The paper specifically seeks answers to six key questions: > > Question 1: Please comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU > TLD to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative > models for > the Registry organisation that should be considered? > > Question 2: What should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's > registration policies? > How should the registration policy be developed and implemented? By the > Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative body or by the European > Commission > itself? > > Question 3: Would it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark > policies as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are > there alternative solutions to these issues within the European Union? > Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation of the > Internal Market in Alicante in this context? > > Question 4: To what extent might a more constraining instrument in the > European Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the > DNS, in > addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case which categories of > names > should be protected and how should they be determined? > > Question 5: Do potential business users, including small and medium sized > enterprises have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed > in order to > optimise its contribution to the development of electronic commerce in > Europe? > > Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into > account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the > national > ccTLD Registries in the Member States? > > Keith Gymer > PAGE HARGRAVE > Manfield House > 1 Southampton Street > London WC2R 0LR > T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 > F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 > Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk > Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 10:07:14 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Keith Gymer wrote: > The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet > top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at: > http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm > > It is open for public comment for 6 weeks - ie apparently until 15 March > 2000 > > The paper specifically seeks answers to six key questions: > > Question 1: Please comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU > TLD to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative > models for > the Registry organisation that should be considered? > > Question 2: What should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's > registration policies? > How should the registration policy be developed and implemented? By the > Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative body or by the European > Commission > itself? > > Question 3: Would it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark > policies as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are > there alternative solutions to these issues within the European Union? > Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation of the > Internal Market in Alicante in this context? > > Question 4: To what extent might a more constraining instrument in the > European Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the > DNS, in > addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case which categories of > names > should be protected and how should they be determined? > > Question 5: Do potential business users, including small and medium sized > enterprises have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed > in order to > optimise its contribution to the development of electronic commerce in > Europe? > > Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into > account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the > national > ccTLD Registries in the Member States? > > > Keith Gymer > PAGE HARGRAVE > Manfield House > 1 Southampton Street > London WC2R 0LR > T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 > F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 > Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk > Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk > > > > > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 10:41:21 -0500 From: bill@mail.nic.nu (J. William Semich) Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Exactly right. And if ICANN plans to support non-English language TLDs (as well as ccTLDs), I believe "EU" could be taken to mean "Etats-Unis" or "The United States" en Français. Definitely a name-space collision. Bill Semich .NU Domain At 10:07 AM 2/3/00 -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote: >No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. > >--Joseph > >On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Keith Gymer wrote: > >> The European Commission Working paper on the creation of the .EU Internet >> top level domain, dated 2nd February, 2000 is available at: >> http://europa.eu.int/comm/dg13/index.htm >> >> It is open for public comment for 6 weeks - ie apparently until 15 March >> 2000 >> >> The paper specifically seeks answers to six key questions: >> >> Question 1: Please comment on the above outline of the delegation of the .EU >> TLD to a Registration organisation: the Registry. Are there alternative >> models for >> the Registry organisation that should be considered? >> >> Question 2: What should be the main criteria for the .EU Registry's >> registration policies? >> How should the registration policy be developed and implemented? By the >> Registry organisation, by a distinct consultative body or by the European >> Commission >> itself? >> >> Question 3: Would it be appropriate to apply the WIPO disputes and trademark >> policies as reflected in their May 1999 Report to the .EU Domain, or are >> there alternative solutions to these issues within the European Union? >> Might there be a specific role for the Office for the Harmonisation of the >> Internal Market in Alicante in this context? >> >> Question 4: To what extent might a more constraining instrument in the >> European Union or in WIPO reinforce protection of names and marks in the >> DNS, in >> addition to alternative dispute resolution? In that case which categories of >> names >> should be protected and how should they be determined? >> >> Question 5: Do potential business users, including small and medium sized >> enterprises have any suggestions as to how the .EU domain might be managed >> in order to >> optimise its contribution to the development of electronic commerce in >> Europe? >> >> Question 6: Are there any other considerations that should be taken into >> account about the relationships between the proposed .EU Registry and the >> national >> ccTLD Registries in the Member States? >> >> >> Keith Gymer >> PAGE HARGRAVE >> Manfield House >> 1 Southampton Street >> London WC2R 0LR >> T: +44 (0)20 7240 6933 >> F: +44 (0)20 7379 0268 >> Email: london@pagehargrave.co.uk >> Web: www.pagehargrave.co.uk >> >> >> >> >> >> > > Bill Semich President and Founder .NU Domain Ltd http://whats.nu bill@mail.nic.nu ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:13:31 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Joseph, Please cite the controlling authority. Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 11:46:21 -0500 From: "Kevin J. Connolly" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Joseph Friedman wrote 02/03/00 10:07AM >>> >No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. >--Joseph Sometimes, it's dangerous to let lawyers get involved in the more technical aspects of this process. (I exclude myself from the dangerous category only because lawyer though I am, I'm reasonably safe on the technology; it's the policy decisions where I'm dangerous :-) Just because countries _normally_ map into a two-letter TLD does not mean that two-letter TLD's are reserved for country codes. Formally, Mr. Friedman's post reduces to the statement that "all A is B, therefore all B is A." I trust that we all (even those whose last contact with formal logic was high school geometry) recognize that as a fallacy. I have diligently looked for, but have not found, any Internet documents which reserve two-letter TLDs to country domains. If such a reservation is in effect, then please (a) accept my apology in advance and (b) cite the relevant document. Kevin J. Connolly The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP. This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. ********************************************************************** The information contained in this electronic message is confidential and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com ********************************************************************** ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 09:12:59 -0800 From: "Bret A. Fausett" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Joseph Friedman wrote: > No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. According to the European Union's working paper, they have secured ISO 3166 status for "EU" "for the purposes of the Internet DNS...." See excerpt from the Working Paper below. -- Bret - ---------------------------------------------- 2. The ISO 3166 Standard codes For historical reasons, ICANN's predecessor, IANA, delegated ccTLD Registries to bodies in countries outside the United States on the basis of an international standard code representing geographical entities, known as the ISO 3166 Standard. IANA's general policy for the delegation and operation of Registries was described in the document known as RFC 1591 which is currently being updated by the ICANN organisation including advice from the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Currently, virtually all the available 243 two letter codes have been assigned. Although the territorial code "EU" has not yet been fully standardised and is not included in the primary list of ISO 3166 two letter codes, the code "EUR" has been standardised and allocated for use representing the Euro currency, and the code "EU" has been reserved for this purpose as well, and has accordingly been included in the list of reserved ISO 3166 codes. This reservation has been extended for the purposes of the international financial bond market. In response to a request from the European Commission in May 1999, the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has: " Š Decided to extend the scope of the reservation of the code element EU to cover any application of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation of the name European Union. The ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has no objections against the exceptionally reserved alpha-2 code element EU being used as a ccTLD identifier. Such use of the code element EU would be in line with normal practice as regards the implementation of ISO 3166-1 reserved code elements to extend this reservation for the purposes of the Internet DNS as well." 3. Delegation of the TLD by ICANN/IANA In the past, IANA has delegated ccTLD Registries on the basis of the ISO 3166 standard. In addition to virtually all national entities, a number of distinct territories (usually islands) are included in the 3166 standard and the corresponding ccTLDs have been delegated. IANA has stated that it was not in the business of deciding what is a country and has consequently sought to refer to the ISO 3166 standard in taking its decisions. In view of the size and economic importance of the European Union and the extensive use that could be made of a .EU TLD, both for Electronic Commerce and for the European Institutions, the European Commission will request the ICANN Board to delegate the .EU TLD on the basis of a decision by the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency to extend the reservation of the existing EU code for the purposes of the Internet. The Commission has also announced that it will promote the creation of the .EU TLD in the context of the eEurope initiative. ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 09:24:28 -0800 From: "Roeland M.J. Meyer" Subject: RE: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU He can't because there isn't one. Isn't that what we are here to do???? > -----Original Message----- > From: owner-wg-c@dnso.org [mailto:owner-wg-c@dnso.org]On Behalf Of Eric > Brunner > Sent: Thursday, February 03, 2000 8:14 AM > To: Joseph Friedman > Cc: Keith Gymer; wg-c@dnso.org; brunner@world.std.com > Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU > > > Joseph, > > Please cite the controlling authority. > > Eric > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:22:48 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU ICANN and the appropiate RFC. - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > Joseph, > > Please cite the controlling authority. > > Eric > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:25:13 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU IANA (a function of ICANN) has stated that it does not decide who is a country. It uses the ISO-3166-1 list. - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Kevin J. Connolly wrote: > > > Joseph Friedman wrote 02/03/00 10:07AM >>> > > > >No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. > > >--Joseph > > Sometimes, it's dangerous to let lawyers get involved in the more technical > aspects of this process. (I exclude myself from the dangerous category only > because lawyer though I am, I'm reasonably safe on the technology; it's the > policy decisions where I'm dangerous :-) > > Just because countries _normally_ map into a two-letter TLD 1591> does not mean that two-letter TLD's are reserved for country codes. > Formally, Mr. Friedman's post reduces to the statement that "all A is B, > therefore all B is A." I trust that we all (even those whose last contact with > formal logic was high school geometry) recognize that as a fallacy. > > I have diligently looked for, but have not found, any Internet documents > which reserve two-letter TLDs to country domains. If such a reservation > is in effect, then please (a) accept my apology in advance and (b) cite > the relevant document. > > Kevin J. Connolly > The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of Robinson > Silverman Pearce Aronsohn & Berman LLP. > This note is not legal advice. If it were, it would come with an invoice. > As usual, please disregard the trailer which follows. > > ********************************************************************** > The information contained in this electronic message is confidential > and is or may be protected by the attorney-client privilege, the work > product doctrine, joint defense privileges, trade secret protections, > and/or other applicable protections from disclosure. If the reader of > this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified > that any use, dissemination, distribution or reproduction of this com- > munication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communi- > cation in error, please immediately notify us by calling our Help Desk > at 212-541-2000 ext.3314, or by e-mail to helpdesk@rspab.com > ********************************************************************** > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 13:26:26 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU They have not been designated by the ISO for the ISO-3166 1. On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Bret A. Fausett wrote: > Joseph Friedman wrote: > > No .EU should be created. .XX is reserved for the ISO country code list. > > According to the European Union's working paper, they have secured ISO 3166 > status for "EU" "for the purposes of the Internet DNS...." See excerpt from > the Working Paper below. > > -- Bret > > ---------------------------------------------- > > 2. The ISO 3166 Standard codes > > For historical reasons, ICANN's predecessor, IANA, delegated ccTLD > Registries to bodies in countries outside the United States on the basis of > an international standard code representing geographical entities, known as > the ISO 3166 Standard. IANA's general policy for the delegation and > operation of Registries was described in the document known as RFC 1591 > which is currently being updated by the ICANN organisation including advice > from the ICANN Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). Currently, virtually > all the available 243 two letter codes have been assigned. > > Although the territorial code "EU" has not yet been fully standardised and > is not included in the primary list of ISO 3166 two letter codes, the code > "EUR" has been standardised and allocated for use representing the Euro > currency, and the code "EU" has been reserved for this purpose as well, and > has accordingly been included in the list of reserved ISO 3166 codes. This > reservation has been extended for the purposes of the international > financial bond market. In response to a request from the European Commission > in May 1999, the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has: > > " Š Decided to extend the scope of the reservation of the code element EU to > cover any application of ISO 3166-1 that needs a coded representation of the > name European Union. The ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has no objections > against the exceptionally reserved alpha-2 code element EU being used as a > ccTLD identifier. Such use of the code element EU would be in line with > normal practice as regards the implementation of ISO 3166-1 reserved code > elements to extend this reservation for the purposes of the Internet DNS as > well." > > 3. Delegation of the TLD by ICANN/IANA > > In the past, IANA has delegated ccTLD Registries on the basis of the ISO > 3166 standard. In addition to virtually all national entities, a number of > distinct territories (usually islands) are included in the 3166 standard and > the corresponding ccTLDs have been delegated. IANA has stated that it was > not in the business of deciding what is a country and has consequently > sought to refer to the ISO 3166 standard in taking its decisions. In view of > the size and economic importance of the European Union and the extensive use > that could be made of a .EU TLD, both for Electronic Commerce and for the > European Institutions, the European Commission will request the ICANN Board > to delegate the .EU TLD on the basis of a decision by the ISO 3166 > Maintenance Agency to extend the reservation of the existing EU code for the > purposes of the Internet. The Commission has also announced that it will > promote the creation of the .EU TLD in the context of the eEurope > initiative. > > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:19:33 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU >They have not been designated by the ISO for the ISO-3166 1. Hi Joe, There's an interesting game being played vis-a-vis the ISO. The CEC in its paper states that they obtained a letter in which the German national standards agency DIN, as ISO 3166 maintainer, says that it "...has no objections against the exceptionally reserved alpha-2 code element EU being used as a ccTLD identifier." See p 4. However, it's not being proposed as a ccTLD identifier, but as a regional intergovernmental organization identifier. The CEC can do all the handwaiving it wants, but plainly its use is not as a country. Furthermore, who is it for the German government standards agency to degree what codes may or may not be used by Internet users? When was IANA's authority transferred to the DIN? - --tony ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 11:30:18 -0800 From: "Christopher Ambler" Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU > The CEC can do all the handwaiving it wants, but plainly > its use is not as a country. Furthermore, who is it for > the German government standards agency to degree what > codes may or may not be used by Internet users? When > was IANA's authority transferred to the DIN? I find I must agree with this. I also must point out that Image Online Design's ongoing request to add its .web registry far supercedes the EU's request for its .eu registry. Should ICANN take action on .eu, without first taking action on .web (and the small number of existing registry requests that have been formally requested of IANA and/or ICANN), I cannot begin to imagine the problems that would be created. It is ironic to remember that AlterNIC, in 1995, was told, "go ahead and create your own root servers if you must," yet the EU's threat to do the same is making ICANN jump. It's all about who you fear. Christopher ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 14:32:04 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Joseph, Sorry to be unclear. In which authoritative text is the basis for the assertion found? Eric > ICANN and the appropiate RFC. > > --Joseph > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > > > Joseph, > > > > Please cite the controlling authority. > > > > Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 14:51:10 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU IANA (a function of ICANN) has a stated ccTLD policy, and it is that it does not decide what is a _country_, but uses the ISO 3166 1. - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > Joseph, > > Sorry to be unclear. In which authoritative text is the basis for the > assertion found? > > Eric > > > ICANN and the appropiate RFC. > > > > --Joseph > > > > On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > > > > > Joseph, > > > > > > Please cite the controlling authority. > > > > > > Eric > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:45:00 -0800 From: Kent Crispin Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:25:13PM -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote: > IANA (a function of ICANN) has stated that it does not decide who is a > country. It uses the ISO-3166-1 list. Both statements are true. Both are irrelevant to the question being asked. - -- Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:45:14 -0500 From: Eric Brunner Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU [Going over the daily limit, but stopping here for the day] Joseph, My query has to do with the authoritative source for the asserted policy that two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are reserved, and to whom. In the early versions of draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-0?.txt we (Eastlake, Manning and Brunner) wrote: version -00 All two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are reserved for assignment to territories. Those (1) allocated by [ISO 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal Union [UPU] and reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally assigned by [ISO 3166] (e.g., a few British Channel Islands), are assigned as so allocated by the generally recognized acting government of the area associated with the "country code" or on a first come first served basis to a designated registry if there is no such government or the government has not exercised control. ... Country codes consisting of a letter and a digit or two digits are not currently used by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. However, to permit possible expansion of the two octet country codes, they are reserved for future allocation as described in the previous paragraph. version -01 Two octet length ASCII label TLDs in the Internet CLASS consisting of letters are for assignment to geo-political territories. Those (1) allocated by [ISO 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal Union [UPU] and reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally assigned by [ISO 3166], are assigned as so allocated. Two letter codes reserved by [ISO 3166] for local use or the like are also reserved as TLDs as are two letter TLDs not yet allocated or reserved by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. A generally recognized acting government of the territory associated with a "country code" has priority to act as or designate the registrar for such TLDs. By version -03 we'd removed all reference to 3166. Now as the authors of the proposed authoritative text on the Domain Name System (DNS) IANA considerations, relative to the two-octet ASCII labels, I'm really very curious where the assertion you made finds its authoritative reference. Cheers, Eric ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 15:58:11 -0500 From: Jay Parker Subject: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs The .eu debate is complicated, that much is clear. However, there are areas of the globe, such as the Caribbean Basin, which could benefit tremendously from the kind of community a regional TLD could foster. Unlike the EU, which has member states enjoying robust country code business and relatively healthy economies, the Caribbean is making slow progess (or no progress) in that arena, and could utilize a regional designation to create social and economic opportunities as a collective. There's really no debating the idea that, in general, the region could use all the economic opportunity it can get. Here's my point: I would hope the notion of a regional TLD, like .eu, would not be dismissed completely, even if that particular TLD is deemed to be unneccesary. Jay Parker West Indies Communications Group International Trust House 180 East Bay Street Charleston, South Carolina 29401 USA tel: +843-805-8460 fax: +843-805-8466 www.westcomgroup.com ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:22:33 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU Eric, There is a differance between a _proposed_ authoritive text and an existing policy. The proposed text is not (and may not become) policy. What I stated was the policy as it stands today. - --Joseph On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Eric Brunner wrote: > [Going over the daily limit, but stopping here for the day] > > Joseph, > > My query has to do with the authoritative source for the asserted policy > that two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are > reserved, and to whom. > > In the early versions of draft-ietf-dnsind-iana-dns-0?.txt we (Eastlake, > Manning and Brunner) wrote: > > version -00 > > All two octet length TLDs in the IN class consisting of letters are > reserved for assignment to territories. Those (1) allocated by [ISO > 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal Union [UPU] and > reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally assigned by [ISO > 3166] (e.g., a few British Channel Islands), are assigned as so > allocated by the generally recognized acting government of the area > associated with the "country code" or on a first come first served > basis to a designated registry if there is no such government or the > government has not exercised control. > ... > Country codes consisting of a letter and a digit or two digits are > not currently used by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. However, to permit > possible expansion of the two octet country codes, they are reserved > for future allocation as described in the previous paragraph. > > version -01 > > Two octet length ASCII label TLDs in the Internet CLASS consisting of > letters are for assignment to geo-political territories. Those (1) > allocated by [ISO 3166] and (2) allocated by the Universal Postal > Union [UPU] and reserved in [ISO 3166] even though not formally > assigned by [ISO 3166], are assigned as so allocated. Two letter > codes reserved by [ISO 3166] for local use or the like are also > reserved as TLDs as are two letter TLDs not yet allocated or reserved > by [ISO 3166] or the [UPU]. A generally recognized acting government > of the territory associated with a "country code" has priority to act > as or designate the registrar for such TLDs. > > By version -03 we'd removed all reference to 3166. Now as the authors of > the proposed authoritative text on the Domain Name System (DNS) IANA > considerations, relative to the two-octet ASCII labels, I'm really very > curious where the assertion you made finds its authoritative reference. > > Cheers, > Eric > ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 03 Feb 2000 16:19:43 -0500 From: "A.M. Rutkowski" Subject: Re: [wg-c] .eu and the notion of regional TLDs At 03:58 PM 2/3/00 , Jay Parker wrote: >that arena, and could utilize a regional designation to create social and >economic opportunities as a collective. There's really no debating the idea >that, in general, the region could use all the economic opportunity it can >get. Hi Jay, This is a poignant plea. However, it also highlights the fact that EU and other regional TLDs are merely a species of generic TLD loosely associated with a political-economic organization brand. Once an EU domain were denominated, non-discriminatory treatment would compel similar benefits to be accorded every other political economic association in the world. The dubious aspect of all this is whether it brings any additional benefits at all to those in the region concerned. The only one it would seem to benefit is the organization involved. - --tony ------------------------------ Date: Thu, 3 Feb 2000 16:23:57 -0500 (EST) From: Joseph Friedman Subject: Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU On Thu, 3 Feb 2000, Kent Crispin wrote: > On Thu, Feb 03, 2000 at 01:25:13PM -0500, Joseph Friedman wrote: > > IANA (a function of ICANN) has stated that it does not decide who is a > > country. It uses the ISO-3166-1 list. > > Both statements are true. Both are irrelevant to the question being > asked. > > -- > Kent Crispin "Do good, and you'll be > kent@songbird.com lonesome." -- Mark Twain What is the question being asked? ------------------------------ End of WG-C-DIGEST V1 #2 ************************