Re: About ccTLDs and gTLDs

[Andrew Sullivan <[e-mail]>]

On Fri, Jun 30, 2017 at 07:31:58AM +0200, Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond wrote:
> Hello all,
> 
> I am reading RFC1591 and RFC3071 and have a couple of simple questions:
> 1. Is a ccTLD defined as restricted to 2-letter country codes (ISO3166
> alpha 2), or could that include 3-letter country codes in the ISO3166
> list (ISO3166 alpha 3)?

RFC 1591 says, "the two letter country codes from ISO-3166," so I
don't see why the 3-letter codes would be included.  I can think of a
good reason _not_ to include 3 letter codes, and that is the potential
for collision with other 3-letter TLDs.  (I believe that the
traditional resistance to adding _any_ 2-letter TLD, even if it's not
on the 3166 list, comes from the possibility that a new country will
happen that could collide with such a 2-letter TLD.  The ISO list
isn't static, and simply reserving everything in the space seems
prudent.  I will not comment on the wisdom of adding "country codes"
that are not on the 3166 2-letter list, except to note the text in
1591, "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is
not a country.")

> 2. RFC1591 appears to point at 2-letter, but many other parts of this
> RFC are obsolete - so does this RFC remain valid?

I am not sure what you mean by "parts of this RFC are obsolete".
There does not appear to be any RFC that obsletes or even updates RFC
1591.

What of course is true is that there is a community that has taken
over the policy role for the root zone, and it might be that that
community regards some of the text as obsolete.  As I pointed out
repeatedly to colleagues around ICANN during the preparation for the
IANA transition, 1591 is not holy writ.  People could update or
obsolete it at any time by using the normal processes for obsoleting
or updating an RFC.  There is the small problem of who has change
control over RFC 1591, since it is not obviously a product of the IETF
and looks like it might have been a product of IANA.  More likely,
since ICANN is in the business of making policies for the root zone
anyway, ICANN could simply issue a new document that it says it will
follow, and publish a statement that for its policy purposes RFC 1591
has been superseded by $document(s).

I got the impression, however, during those conversations, that
several people prefer the current ambiguity because it allows for
divergent opinions, with each opinion holder able to cite some
document.  Whether this is because there is an unresolved difference
of opinion that is hidden behind such appeals, or whether some people
just like to have something to argue about so they can go to meetings,
I cannot say.

Best regards,

A

-- 
Andrew Sullivan
[e-mail]