Timo,
Sorry, but please study RFC 1591 written in 1994 by Jon Postel (think of him as “God” for the DNS community – which would be a clear understatement) himself: rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc1591.txt
It clearly specifies:
“There are a set of what are called "top-level domain names" (TLDs).
These are the generic TLDs (EDU, COM, NET, ORG, GOV, MIL, and INT),
and the two letter country codes from ISO-3166.”
This order has been never once disrupted – all that happened is that more gTLDs were ADDED: Their character remained unchanged: Longer than 2 letters! That 2-letter TLDs are ccTLDs is not just a “long standing principle” – it is THE ONLY principle since the inception of the DNS in 1984. Postel thought it was “unlikely” that more TLD’s would be added – but “unlikely” is not “can never be”; and evidently it happened. But the strict separation of ccTLDs and gTLDs remained intact since the inception of the DNS.
Thanks,
Alexander
From: Timo Võhmar [mailto:timo.vohmar@internet.ee]
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2017 2:05 PM
To: Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no>
Cc: alexander@schubert.berlin; ctn-crosscom@icann.org
Subject: Re: [Ctn-crosscom] [Ext] Re: Interim Paper for public comment
Hi all,
Also agree with Alexander's comments.
In addition I would also like to point out that in number of places ie page 22, page 23 etc there is a claim "...is not consistent with or supported by the simple and long-standing principle that 2-character codes are ccTLDs and 3+-character codes are gTLDs." There is no such long-lasting principle. There was a principle that 2 letters were country codes, five 3 letter generics and one infrastructure TLD (.arpa). That was extended in 2000 with 7 new TLDs. Principle here is closed list of gTLDs and as many 2 letter country codes as there are countries. But that went out of the window with the first round of new gTLDs. Typing + after number 3, stating that whole string space starting from 3 letters was designed for use as gTLD and saying that this has always been how internet was made is ... lets just say wrong. I suggest to use more intelligent arguments when describing different opinions of this group.
The whole 5.2.6 paragraph is very painful read clearly written in free for all spirit as I see only how all arguments hinting an option for anything else than dropping the protection and giving unlimited access to iso 3 letter country codes are criticized. Was this really so one sided discussion in this group? I was not here at that time, so I really do not know. But after reading this, it is amazing to find out that there is no recommendation to give.
I see clear recommendation in 5.2.6 and conflicting conclusion in 5.3.
Best Regards,
Timo Võhmar
On Thu, Jan 26, 2017 at 10:25 AM, Annebeth Lange <annebeth.lange@uninett.no> wrote: