Subject: [Ltru] Re: Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes AND IM Isle of Man

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2005 23:37:56 -0700

Debbie Garside <debbie at ictmarketing dot co dot uk> wrote:

> Having spoken to Joseph Martinez at the ISO 3166 MA, I am reliably
> informed that the process will most probably take 2 months to complete
> (normally 1 month but delayed due to summer holidays).  I am also
> reliably informed that, on the face of it, given that there are UN
> codes and on receipt of a request made via BSI and supported by UK
> government (which should be in place by Friday), there should be no
> problem with the request.

I for one am glad to hear this, as it will put an end once and for all
to the question of how to code these locations.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 09:53:53 +0100

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

Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email-masked] [mailto:[email-masked]] On
> Behalf Of Doug Ewell
> Sent: 15 July 2005 07:38
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Jersey JE and Guernsey GG Country Codes AND IM Isle
> ofMan
>

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 12:06:35 +0200

>the existing code reservations made by that agency, namely:

Dear Debbie,
This is interesting, but this is a political issue. The result could 
interest the [email-masked] 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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 13:13:06 +0200

r&d afrac wrote:

> The result could interest the [email-masked] mailing list
> the day it is created.

Why should it, GG, IM, and JE are already known, test it with
`whois -h whois.iana.org GG` etc.

> 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

IIRC Sarquois, 8 letters, you can register it if you need it:

It's the job of the language list to figure out an appropriate
Recommended-Prefix if "fr-" is not good enough.

> 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.

What's a "caconoology" ?  It has no Google hits, my dictionary
http://www.leo.org/dict/bookmarklet_en.html also doesn't know
"caconoology".

> 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

Ground control to major Jefsey:  This is 3066bis, not 1591bis.

                        Bye, Frank
-- 
<http://purl.net/xyzzy/src/rxwhois.cmd> version 1.8.2 available