RE: Fwd: ISO 3166-1 Newsletter V-8 on Serbia and Montenegro published

["Michelle S. Cotton" <cotton@icann.org>]

John/Michael,

Just letting you know I'm watching the conversation.
We are in contact with Cord about the new code and
are in discussions with staff here.

Michelle



-----Original Message-----
From: iesg-admin@ietf.org [mailto:iesg-admin@ietf.org]On Behalf Of John
C Klensin
Sent: Thursday, July 24, 2003 10:26 AM
To: Michael StJohns
Cc: iab@ietf.org; IESG
Subject: Re: Fwd: ISO 3166-1 Newsletter V-8 on Serbia and Montenegro
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