Question: Is ICANN's decision to adopt ISO 3166 for ccTLDs a policy or technical decision? Before you answer this question, you should be aware of the western-centric composition of the Maintenance Agency http://www.din.de/gremien/nas/nabd/iso3166ma/funccomp.html and that there are already several differences between ccTLDs and ISO3166.

Nominee Replies

Lyman Chapin - posted on 2000-09-24 15:39:16 Unless a very good reason to do otherwise can be demonstrated (and on what grounds such an argument might be made for the Internet as a special case is an issue that is much larger than the specific question presented here), ICANN should, as a matter of policy, follow existing international standards whenever possible. ISO is authoritative for the association of alpha-2 codes with the official short names in English of the 239 countries listed in ISO 3166-1. I see no reason for ICANN to use a different set of codes for ccTLD names. [The current IANA ccTLD database follows 3166 with very few exceptions, all of which are artifacts of the assignment over time of ccTLD management to specific managers. The ccTLD database includes two code points that are not in 3166 (.ac Ascension Island and .je Jersey), and it lists .uk rather than .gb for the United Kingdom. It also retains .zr (Zaire), although it has added The Democratic Republic of the Congo (.cd) as has 3166.] Harris Miller - posted on 2000-09-23 18:50:37 ICANN should adhere to ISO 3166 to the extent possible in its policy making. That reference keeps ICANN's decisions from being questioned as motivated by bias, etc. Emerson Tiller, J.D., Ph.D. - posted on 2000-09-22 09:33:08 Policy decision, as are most of the decisions, technical or otherwise. As ICANN's technical decisions play out and it becomes clear who wins and loses with certain technical choices, most people will throw out the artificial distinction between policy and technology choice. For the most part, they'll be one in the same in cyberspace. That is not to say that ICANN should be an activist in setting policy. But let's not put our heads in the sand either. Lawrence Lessig - posted on 2000-09-22 05:17:46 I believe ICANN should minimize its policy making role. But obviously, as those of us criticizing ICANN at its birth said, there is no way for it to avoid policy making completely. The architecture of cyberspace itself is a policy -- encouraging free exchange, free speech, etc. There is no way to affect that architecture without doing policy. But even if everything is policy, somethings are more plainly policy making than others. Taking positions on controversial views of intellectual property is more clearly policy making than supporting architectures that allow a range of privacy policies to be implemented. ICANN should push to the latter kind of policy making, and avoid the former. Choosing ISO 3166 is less troubling policy making, in my view, than it would have been for ICANN to decide on its own what countries were countries. Deviation from 3166 puts ICANN in a more difficult position, starting it down a road to politics. I would resist that.