Hi -
A couple of items of history. Back about 1987, Jon Postel and I talked
about the original registration of .INT - he was the IANA, I was
managing the NIC contract which would be responsible for dealing with
registrations under .INT. ( .INT ended up being managed by ISI under an
DARPA contract when the DDN PMO wouldn't cover the costs). The topic of
the cc TLDs came up then and strangely a bit later when I was at
(D)ARPA. The first time was a discussion about .UK vs .GB, the last was
about Native American tribes/nations.
Jon was adamant (and I think rightly so) about keeping the IANA out of
determinations of "what is a country" and to use the 3166 process for
allocation of 2 character TLDs (note I didn't say ccTLDs) and I think
that still makes a lot of sense. Given that, I would suggest we say
that all of the possible two letter TLDs not yet delegated have been
reserved by the IANA on behalf of ISO3166 pending a request to delegate
them to an entity identified by ISO3166. I might suggest that
ICANN/IANA update RFC1591 to discuss how to deal with "transitionally
reserved" TLDs/ISO3166-2 codes (e.g. .SU from the soviet union for
example) if they haven't already.
And to answer John's original question - it's probably a bad idea, but,
like smoking, it probably won't kill you immediately. I might actually
suggest using .EZ which looks like it will never be stood up as a DNS
domain given that its registration is for " European OTC
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Over-the-counter_%28finance%29>
derivatives within International securities identification numbering
system
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Securities_Identifying_Number>
(ISIN)"
And to go back to Ed's comment. I *wouldn't* move forward with his
draft. It's not space that's currently owned by the IETF/IANA/ICANN.
So a big +1 to Mark's comment about using namespaces not delegated to you.
Mike
On 9/29/2016 11:44 AM, David Conrad wrote:
Mark,
On September 28, 2016 at 10:35:40 PM, Mark Andrews (ma...@isc.org
<mailto:ma...@isc.org>) wrote:
Things can change. It is ALWAYS a bad idea to use namespace not
delegated to you.
Unless, of course, Ed's draft progresses and the user assigned ISO
codes are turned into private use TLDs (similar to RFC 1918 turning
10/8, etc., into private use address space).
The only way the user assigned codes could be delegated would be if:
a) ISO reverses their policy for those codes and assigns them to countries
b) The IETF revises name assignment policy and demands they be delegated
c) The ICANN community revises name assignment policy and allows them
to be delegated
I'm quite confident that (c) will never occur -- too many parts of the
ICANN community would reject the idea instantaneously and given the
new gTLD program, there is simply no reason for the question to even
come up. Similarly, I'm reasonably confident the IETF won't demand
those labels be delegated -- I can't see a reason why a different
solution would be sufficient. Where I don't have as much confidence is
in ISO-3166/MA's actions, but that's mostly because I don't know how
they work.
Regards,
-drc
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
_______________________________________________
DNSOP mailing list
DNSOP@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
