ICANN ICANN Email List Archives


<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Responses to the questions on TLD removal topic

  • To: cctld-sunset-comments@xxxxxxxxx
  • Subject: Responses to the questions on TLD removal topic
  • From: Anatoly Boyandin <araneus@xxxxxxx>
  • Date: Sat, 6 Jan 2007 22:44:15 +0700

1. Should IANA adhere to the ISO-3166 standard and remove top-level domains 
from the DNS root that become transitionally reserved (i.e. retired)?

Not always. IANA should take into account that many web pages are used like 
printed papers now, for example for references and citing. Therefore 
inaccessibility of such pages will make serious problems for using not only 
removed sites but also sites in other domains which are using references to 
sites in non-ISO domains. For example many Russian scientific institutions and 
also different scientific and educational resources have web sites in SU domain 
from 1991-1994 (before creation RU domain). Forced changing their locations 
will spoil many external links and really disturb integrity of Russian (and 
even CIS) scientific web area.

2. If so, by what process should this be conducted?

In future removing non-ISO domains should be realized only with transfer ALL 
old second level domains in a new zone with a code assigned with a new country 
(a new name of country, etc.). For some period (for example, five year) it will 
be necessary to support both (old and new domains) like mirrors. In this case 
it will be possible to publicly announce about global changing domain 
abbreviation for ALL sites in a domain should be removed. In the case of SU 
domain it is impossible now because of creation many sites in RU domain with 
the same names as in SU domain but of different owners and content. I think 
that the situation with TP and TL domains is the same.

3. What implementation timeframes for removal should be specified?

If removing is possible (see answers 1 and 2) timeframe should be about five 

4. If removal is test-based, what specific milestones should signify removal 
from the root zone?
Such tests would be enough strange. No test.

5. What pre-emptive right, if any, should existing operators have toward a new 
code that covers an area previously serviced (in whole, or in part) by another 

If removing is possible (see answers 1 and 2) existing operators should have 
possibility to use both domains (old and new or one of new domains) like 
mirrors for intermediate period (at the price of one domain). After removing 
old domain they should have right to use the same second level domains in the 
new zone as in the old (with changed ccTLD abbreviation).

6. In the event there is more than one code for a particular country available 
for its use (e.g. GB and UK), what policy should govern their status?

It is not a really dangerous. Such situations is enough widespread now: US, 
GOV, MIL, EDU (with enough widely using COM, NET and ORG) for USA; EU and 
national domain for any member of EU; ASIA and national domain for any Asian 
country; SU and national domains for countries of ex-USSR; UK and GB for the 
United Kingdom; TP and TL for East Timor; old and new codes for former 
Yugoslavian countries. I think that preservation of Internet (i.e. web 
resources) integrity is much more important than formal observance of principle 
"one domain per one country". But it is possible that some old, special or 
almost not used country codes (e.g., EU, SU, YU (covered officially or 
historically area of more then one modern country) or even TP or GB) may be 
converted from ccTLD to gTLD status.

Anatoly Boyandin
System administrator
Krasnoyarsk, Russia

<<< Chronological Index >>>    <<< Thread Index >>>

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy