Re: [DNSOP] On .ZZ

[Dr Eberhard W Lisse <[e-mail]>]

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
>  > > <[e-mail]> 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-mail]            / *     |   Telephone: [phone] (cell)
PO Box 8421                  /
Bachbrecht, Namibia     ;____/