Hi Mike, > On 14 Jun 2020, at 21:12, Michael StJohns <m...@nthpermutation.com> wrote: > > Roy et al - > > Is there a document from ICANN taking a position on the assignment of TLDs > based on ISO3166 assignments?
Yes: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/icann-iso-3166-2012-05-09-en From that page: "In 2000, the ICANN Board of Directors recognized the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency as the authoritative entity for country code designations and officially adopted the use of ISO 3166-1 and the 3166-MA exceptional reserved list as the set of eligible designations for ccTLD assignment (September 2000)” Please note that: The ISO/TC46/WG2 “owns” ISO3166. Any substantial changes to it, need to go through TC46. The user-assigned two letter codes exist since the inception of the standard (15 december 1974). TC46/WG2 has designated the User-Assigned two letter codes to users of the ISO3166-1 standard (not to the Maintenance Agency!) TC46/WG2 refers the remaining codes to the Maintenance Agency for the assignment (Reserved, Assigned, Re-Assigned, Deleted, etc, etc) of two letter codes to country names. The ISO3166/MA has no authority over the User-Assigned two letter codes. It is naive to think that these policies, some of which pre-dates ICANN and even the Internet would be ignored by either ICANN or the ISO. I think it is safe to assume that these codes will never by delegated in the root zone. > When Jon was doing this he was adamant about following their lead - rather > than having to make political decisions about what was a country. The main > role he had was not the selection of the TLDs, but making sure that the > delegations went to the right organizations related to the countries > indicated by the TLD. I would say that ICANN should probably have the same > role. I agree. > Given that ISO has indicated a range of specifically NOT issued 2 letter > codes, and that these codes will never (should never?) be added to the root > zone, I would suggest that it's probably not an ICANN role to weigh in on > this interpretation. I agree. > That said, I'd prefer it if the document selected a few (<=10) codes from > these ranges so that filtering may be built into various servers and clients > to prevent leakage. With all due respect, I’ll wait with responding about specifics until the WG has adopted the document (if at all). Warmly, Roy _______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
