On 4 May 2015, at 7:16, Patrik Fältström wrote: > I.e. 3166/MA is very careful with it not being the ones that register codes.
Let me add...but they have not been so careful with what codes they reserve. Remember that in those days the list of reserved codes was not public (although IANA did have access to it as part of the coordination I try to describe). The issue with referencing something only being reserved by ISO 3166/MA and not registered implied a much lower barrier had been passed to get a ccTLD. It would only require being on the reserved list. When in reality ISO 3166/MA rather want ICANN to decide what should be a ccTLD (part from registered codes) and then when ICANN had allocated something that was not registered, it could become registered by 3166/MA. The reserved list was made for, as you imply make it easier for people like ICANN to do the allocation. But ICANN can not do the allocation with the argument that it is reserved. ICANN could have said "we allocate this because we a. want to, and b. because according to what we see in the material ISO 8859/MA produces, there is a very low risk of future collissions". But instead ICANN have, and still am, referring to EU be on the reserved list (and now exceptionally reserved) as a reason to allocate as a ccTLD. I.e. I have to try to explain this story about every year, to ICANN staff, which I feel is sad. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
