Re: [wg-c] Commission Working paper on the creation of .EU

[John Charles Broomfield <jbroom@manta.outremer.com>]

> > The European Union
> > has approached ISO and said "hi, we want the code '.eu' in ISO-3166". As
> > such, the ISO-3166 maintanance agency *seems* quite favorable in that it
> has
> > already included '.eu' in the list of reserved codes.
> 
> Correct. But what you're overlooking here is that this is probably the first
> time in the ISO-3166 list's history that a formal request has been made to
> add a code to the list specifically in order to qualify for a TLD.

Would you care to state the reason why Palestine has pushed so hard to get
inclusion into ISO-3166 if not for the purpose of getting a ccTLD?

> > The only exception to that was the request
> > from UK to have ".uk" instead of ".gb" because it was more inclusive.
> 
> This is an interesting example of the retroactive creation of a myth to come
> up with a plausible explanation of something that was actually implausible.
> In fact, the British were the first to request and country code and Postel
> used .UK because he didn't bother to check the actual list! He thought it
> "obvious" it would be .UK.

Care to explain the existence of the delegation of ".gb"?

> This is relevant because it shows just how casually and unilaterally things
> were done fifteen years ago, and how inapplicable IANA precedents can be to
> the current situation.
> Today, we need an international proceeding and a formal interaction between
> high-level EC and ISO agencies; back then, whatever quirky thing Jon decided
> was law.
> 
> (BTW, there is nothing "more inclusive about "uk" than "gb" -- the terms
> Great Britain and United Kingdom are used interchangably.)

Great Britain is the large(ish) island to the right which comprises Wales
Scotland and England. United Kingdom includes Northen Ireland (which Great
Britain doesn't). The full and long name of the country is "United Kingdom
of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". So, "uk" *is* more inclusive than
"gb". Going into debates about whether it is best or not to include Northern
Ireland is beyond the scope of the message.

In any case, that's enough nit-picking. For whatever reasons that ".eu" get
additioned to ISO-3166, that *is* the place where the ccTLD list is derived
from. If you think that ".eu" should NOT be added into ISO-3166, then take
it up with ISO. I am not discussing  the merits or lack of them as to
whether ".eu" should or not be introduced to ISO-3166. What I AM saying is
that if its in, then that entitles creation of a ccTLD. And if it's NOT in,
then no ccTLD.

Yours, John Broomfield.