-----Original Message----- From: Einar Stefferud <Stef at nma.com> To: domain-policy at open-rsc.org <domain-policy at open-rsc.org> Cc: DOMAIN-POLICY at lists.internic.net <DOMAIN-POLICY at lists.internic.net>; tld-wg at ripe.net <tld-wg at ripe.net>; IFWP ORG <ifwp at ifwp.org>; rsctalk at ah.net <rsctalk at ah.net> Date: Saturday, September 12, 1998 8:08 PM Subject: Re: .GP and .MQ to be Removed ?

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.

If you start from a position that ccTLDs are special then you might come to the conclusions that you have reached. From an IPv8 point of view, a TLD, is a TLD, is a TLD. I think that it is better for people to abandon the notion that the IANA was ever able to delegate ccTLDs to government sanctioned people. If you stick with that notion, then you may run the risk of having to go back almost to square one and have ALL of the ccTLDs re-apply with the "new" IANA in order to prove that they are sanctioned by their government. In my opinion, that will open a can of worms that will never end. I think that it is better to recognize that this IANA charage of ccTLDs and close government ties does not exist. We need to move forward and allow the free market to take care of the legacy that the IANA is going to leave. If we do not, the governments will step in and really make a mess. I claim that there is room in the root zone for all of the following: .US .USA .AMERICA Let's let customers decide which they like, OK ? 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 11:23:12 MET DST 1998 ---------