[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: Fwd: ISO 3166-1 Newsletter V-8 on Serbia andMontenegro published

--On Thursday, 24 July, 2003 10:41 -0400 Michael StJohns <mstjohns@mindspring.com> wrote:

At 23:28 7/23/2003, Randy Bush wrote:

> if iso has a country code for X
>          and X sets up servers and gets a cctld assigned
>          and X is later not a country
>            and iso assigns Y the country code previously
>            used by X and there are active domains
>            previously under the cctld related to X
>        can Y set up servers and get the cctld assigned to
>        it that was previously assigned to X

that is how it has been done in the past.

randy


I'm still scratching my head here... "in the past"?  While old
countries have gone away and become new countries with new
codes, according to the note paf forwarded, the assignment of
"CS" to the new country was only the second time since 74 that
a country code was reused.  I don't remember any other country
code being reused since the DNS got started.  Which is why I
raised the general question.
Mike,

I don't know the details of what happened here and why -- if we need/want to know, someone (probably Patrik, since I'm trying to be "retired") should simply ask Cord Wischhoefer -- my experience is that he will tell us things like that if we ask and, unlike ICANN, 3166/MA rarely if ever thinks it has secrets it would like to hide or obscure.

But my guess is that they checked the code assignment with both the Czech Republic and Slovakia and that neither had any objections to reassignment. 3166/MA impresses me as a collection of _very_ careful folks. The interesting question for us (and for ICANN) is whether "they" (presumably the national ISO member organizations) would have had the information and sense to notice if the old domain name was still in active use as, e.g., .SU is (without getting into _those_ very complex politics). And I think a formal note to 3166/MA noting the danger of this sort of reallocation if there is any possibility of domain names still being in use might be in order, although I think such a note should probably come from ICANN/IANA rather than from the IAB or IETF.

I imagine that, if "we" were to draft a specific note -- after checking with Cord and being sure we had our facts straight -- that we could persuade ICANN to send it (or to generate a joint note with us, which might be better yet from at least some points of view) without very much difficulty.

So - which country code was reassigned from an old dead
country to a new country that required DNS changes and the
movement of delegations from the old dead country code?
(Unless you're referring to the "gb" vs "uk" debacle?)
Almost certainly not that one, if only because neither has ever been reused (and I'd expect the long-term chair of 3166/MA, who is _very_ British, to fight such a [re]allocation to the death).

best,
john