Re: [ICANN-EU] .EU

[Jefsey Morfin <jefsey@wanadoo.fr>]

Dear Alexander,
I dont't think we disagree.

At 10:43 30/09/00, you wrote:
>Dear Jefsey,
>sorry to disagree once more! ;)
> > 1. The .eu string was ill chosen and never discussed. As considered on the
> > icann-fra ML the Brussels document asked question about
> >      the management of ".eu" never on the choice of ".eu". In French and
> > spanish "EU" means Etats Unis or Estados Unidos, ie. USA.
>I think, in Spanish the USA abbreviation is EEUU.
>Additionally, e.g. .FR is not an abbreviation, but the
>/beginning/ of the word FRance. Same applies to .DEutschland,
>.ITalia, .ESpaņa. So .EUrope would not be that illogical...

What I mainly say is that the extensive Brussels' study on .eu was
about the management of the TLD not on its designation. For such an
issue, a democratic and a communication approach would have called
for a consensus (we know to set it up for the Eurovision contest...).

I also note that number of comments received from European was
very low when considering the number of stakeholders. Certainly
.EU is not illogical, but it is not the best, it was not foressen to that
end and makes us to lose an unique opportunity (see below) and
nobody was ever given the chance to discuss it. Let say this is a
rough consensus we will leave with and many will be unhappy with.

> > [...]
> > (http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/new02_00.html)
>
> > This means that the ".eu" is not actually a country but a money. Denmark
> > and UK are supposed not to be confused withe Euro.
>The reserved code element /was/ meant for the money, but
>now it is to be used for the European Union. That is the
>advice the ISO 3166-1 maintenance agency gives.

Yes. This is why it is ill chosen. We could have had ".eu" for the
Europe and maybe ".ue" or ".ecom", or ".eur" for Europe. Anyone
is able to see that it would have meant some additional value and
synergy both for the Euro and for Europe.

> > 4. As a general comment, I disagree with the use of the ISO 3166 as a
> > formal reference.
> > [...]
> >  ccTLD have to
> > be perpetual (you do not change the address of millions of people).
>Well, I have heard there still are some .su (Soviet Union) addresses
>around, but if a country e.g. splits up, in most cases the ccTLD
>will also split up. There may be a period of transition, but the
>ISO codes and hence ccTLD names should reflect the real world.

I do not discagree with the current ccTLD, I disagree with the choice
of the ccTLD by a foreign authority and the use of a former ccTLD
for a new country after 5 years.

In the case of Anjouan and other places, as it was in the case of PLO,
this attitude may [have] contribute[d] to peace/war. We have the case
of Macedonia to show us that usually country names and regalia are
decided by the local people, may lead to conflicts and are handled by
international agreements.

As Europeans we have "chosen" ".eu". However stupid I think that
choice is, I would have certainly defended it would the ICANN have
rejected it, because I never gave directly or indirectly ICANN nor ISO
that right. Did you in Germany?
Have a nice WE.
Jefsey