Sine the original IANA policy was to grant two letter DNS Domains to goverments that are recognized by ISO-3166 with registration of two letter ISO codes. IANA was nto then concerned about what kind of Govt it was, as they simply took the ISO-3166 list as their guide. So, it is clear to me that .FR ahs an internal problem with the relationships between the Govt of France and the Govt of .GP, whcih has nothing to do with the Internet or the DNS. I strongly uurge us all to stay out of any internal fights that might erupt between France and its Protectorates! What we have here is yet another instance of the ITU confusing local matters with global matters. However, this appears to bne yet another example of the IANA not doing proper due diligence in the past, on the politics of its actions. Cheers...\Stef } }It appears that the "country" of France, wants the }TLDs .GP and .MQ. Why were they delegated by }the IANA to people that were not "authorized" ? }This seems counter to what has been reported }in these forums. } }@@@@ http://www.gtld-mou.org/pab/mail-archive/00298.html } }"Lastly, it is necessary to end rapidly the exploitation, by private }operators }having received no mandate from the French authorities, of the management }of top level domains corresponding to French overseas departments }(.gp for Guadeloupe, .mq for Martinique,...). IANA effectively considers }that }these are "national" domains. The French government must therefore }request IANA to refuse to recognize these operators or to allocate them }IP addresses." } }@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@ } } }Jim Fleming }Unir Corporation - http://www.unir.com }End-2-End: VPC(Java)---C+ at ---<IPv8>---C+ at ---(Java)VPC }http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/130dftmail/unir.txt }http://www.ddj.com/index/author/idx10133.htm } } -------- Logged at Mon Sep 14 11:22:23 MET DST 1998 ---------