[This has drifted a ways off from DNS terminology, so I changed the subject]
Patrik, Sorry, I'm a bit confused. > What ISO 3166/MA said was that the _only_ difference between the two, and the > reason why they reacted on .EU, was that ICANN referred to .EU being reserved > as a reason for registration. ICANN argued that EU should be registered because .EU was reserved? > 3166/MA is specifically reserving things that other organization uses. I.e. > 3166/MA want to have an exceptionally reserved code of EU just because ICANN > has decided to use EU as a ccTLD. I presume a "does not" is missing there, i..e, "3166/MA DOES NOT want to ..." > To be able to do that, they do not want ICANN to register a ccTLD of .EU with > an argument that 3166/MA has reserved EU. That would end up being a circular > reference. Understandable. if the EU ISO-3166 hadn't been exceptionally reserved (like AC, UK, etc), I would have presumed that ICANN would have simply rejected a request to register .EU. > A *registration* in 3166/MA on the other hand is something that happens > because someone else (UN Statistics Division, UPU or someone) decides to use > a code, and 3166/MA decides to actually register the code. That can be > referenced by anyone (except the one that have done the registration). The 2-letter code "EU" was not in use by "someone else" prior to ICANN being asked (presumably by the EU) to create it as a ccTLD? Or is the parenthetical the issue: that the only "someone else" was the EU itself, so 3166/MA refused to register that code in their internal registration table and someone argued that ICANN's use constituted a valid "someone else"? Sorry for the confusion. Thanks, -drc
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
