Re: [DNSOP] Tell me about the ISO 3166 user assigned two-letter codes and TLDs

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 (marka@isc.org 
> <mailto:marka@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