Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050715113535.04e64b50@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:06:35 +0200
To: "Debbie Garside" <debbie@ictmarketing.co.uk>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] Re: Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes AND IM
	Isle ofMan
In-Reply-To: <200507150853.j6F8rbq8012826@smtp-los02.proxy.aol.com>
References: <003301c58907$bc9e6240$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
	<200507150853.j6F8rbq8012826@smtp-los02.proxy.aol.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 10:53 15/07/2005, Debbie Garside said:
>FYI
>Extract of 21 page document prepared for ISO 3166 MA:
>Formal Request
>
>The governments of the Islands, with the unreserved support of the United
>Kingdom government, request that the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency re-examine
>the political and economic status of the Islands with a view to authorising
>separate Alpha code elements for Guernsey, Jersey and the Isle of Man, using
>the existing code reservations made by that agency, namely:
>
>         Guernsey                        GG      GGY
>         Jersey                  JE      JEY
>         Isle of Man             IM      IMN
>
>Regards

Dear Debbie,
This is interesting, but this is a political issue. The result could 
interest the rfc3066@iana.org mailing list the day it is created. The 
purpose of this WG is to propose a general solution which does not make 
acception of such particular cases and of their evolution.

I am certainly glad to see that GG, JE and IM are going to get an official 
code due to our Member Tony. If this WG wants to continue to involve itself 
in this kind of issues, the situation of the Sark language in the Balliwick 
of Gernsey is not clear to me, nor the Tamil issue.

The role of an IETF WG is not to be a substitute for an ISO or a UN 
committee, not even to influence them. To the countrary it should take care 
of staying immune from such matters. I know, some oppose the acknowledgment 
of ISO's ultimate authoritativeness on ISO matters and the use of a 
political disclaimer for technical positions with a deep political impact. 
The result from such a lack of clear area separation and confusion can be 
seen when consensus (another one) is for the Internet to be submitted to an 
UN organisation on the premises of the politicians understanding of the 
internet technology.

It is interesting to note - to the countrary - that in this caconoology the 
only stable entity RFC, IETF, IANA, ICANN, WGIG, USG acknowledge as their 
proper interlocutor to work with for the stability of the network, is the 
ccTLD. I am not sure this would be the case if John Postel had not defined 
them the way he did and if he had accepted they could be an alternative to 
the M.49 area codes, as the IANA (now the questionned ICANN) could want to 
use them. This is that type of confusion, a Babel repetition, I wish we 
spare the world.

jfc


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru