I agree with Jaap (about the principle). I think it is safe to assume that there will not be a ccTLD corresponding to an alpha-2 code element that does not form part of 3161-1 ie is available as 'User Assigned'.
I personally find an alpha-3 code element, ie .ZZZ, less confusing to the casual user than an alpha-2 one, ie .ZZ, but, perhaps unfortunately (in this context) the User Assigned alpha-3s are open for business (eg. .XYZ and .XXX come to mind). So anything there, even .ZZZ is a possibility. Only the ones which are possible (ie correspond to an actual country name in the Standard) under 3611-1 are (somewhat) protected, apparently So using alpha-2 seems the only option and .ZZ does make sense. Could Paul's valid point be solved by 'reserving' .ZZ[A-Z] as well? el On 21/11/2019 9:55 am, Jaap Akkerhuis wrote: > Paul Wouters writes: > > > On Nov 21, 2019, at 15:18, Alexander Mayrhofer > > > <alex.mayrhofer.i...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > ..ZZ would remind me of long beards and loud motorcycles for the > > > rest of my life.. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZZ_Top > > > > English speaking people can’t even agree on how to pronounce this > > name...... > > > > Having an undelegated .zz is also not guaranteed to be free of > > security issues, for example if ICANN delegates .zzz there will be > > interesting typo attacks possible in this weird private space. > > > > The code zzz is also private space > > > Finally, I agree. People want something semantic and more > > pronounceable. > > In what language? Furtherore, there are a sle of codes to choose > from. Currently the principle choice is wether one wants to use these > 'User Assigned' ISO codes. > > jaap -- Dr. Eberhard W. Lisse / Obstetrician & Gynaecologist (Saar) e...@lisse.na / * | Telephone: +264 81 124 6733 (cell) PO Box 8421 / Bachbrecht, Namibia ;____/ _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
