Discuss mailing list

[Jacob Bachmeyer <jcb62281 AT gmail.com>]

Aaron J. Angel wrote:
> spaesani,
>
> You are correct that the RFC does not establish a list of two-letter 
> codes to be used as ccTLDs. It also does not specify any more than a 
> small number of gTLDs, yet we have plenty more than originally listed. 
> It does, however, incorporate ISO 3316-1 alpha-2 by reference, which 
> is also the only source for current two-letter TLDs. All other TLDs, 
> even the new ones approved by ICANN, are more than two characters in 
> length.
>
> I find it difficult to support any other use for two-letter TLDs given 
> that the list of country codes is an external source that is subject 
> to revision, especially one with whose author we have no qualms. This 
> is similar to the problem of new but overlapping ICANN-approved gTLDs, 
> except that OpenNIC has a strong disliking, I think, to the way ICANN 
> approves new gTLDs. This is not the case with the ISO country codes.
>
> If your problem with limiting two-letter TLDs to ccTLDs is that we are 
> absent a policy of disallowing any other use, I would be firmly on the 
> side of establishing such a policy.

I had always believed that the RFCs required such a policy.  I support 
adopting a "all two-letter TLDs are reserved for ccTLDs" policy, with 
provisions that "country-like entities" may also be considered and that 
previously assigned country codes may remain valid.  (This proviso 
allows for .ll and .su to meet the criteria, for example.)

-- Jacob