Re: [DNSOP] Call for Adoption: draft-arends-private-use-tld

[Roy Arends <[e-mail]>]

Hi Mike,

> On 14 Jun 2020, at 21:12, Michael StJohns <[e-mail]> 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