Dear Tsung-Yi Yu:
thanks for your follow-up. Obviously I cannot speak for RIPE NCC and
someone there might wish to provide a better answer than me.
But my observation is that the page which you are referencing is
https://www.ripe.net/membership/member-support/list-of-members/list-of-country-codes-and-rirs/
which, to me, although I have not checked it in detail, looks like to be
a copy of the ISO 3166-1 and ISO 3166-2 list maintained by ISO. In fact
the page says:
We update the list whenever a change to the official code list in ISO
3166-1 is made by the ISO 3166/MA.
I do not believe that APNIC and ICANN are referring to the ISO 3166 list
when using other naming conventions as this would be a derivation from
the list itself.
BTW I am of course sensitive to matters of country naming and understand
how this can easily become both an emotional and political matter. I
have personally witnessed several such instances.
For example, whilst ICANN might be exercising some alternative
approaches in its own naming conventions (in the GAC, for example),
matters of Top Level Domains which relate to ISO 3166 are strictly
adhered to with the official name. For example, the delegation of the PS
Top Level Domain for Palestine only took place in 2000, after the
publication of the Code and Name in ISO 3166, which at the time was
"Palestinian Occupied Territories". See:
https://archive.icann.org/en/general/ps-report-22mar00.htm
Since then, the name was changed by ISO 3166 to "Palestinian State".
None of this naming had anything to do with ICANN - in fact all of this
was negotiated over years at the United Nations.
Another example is that of MK - another "contentious" naming because of
Greece's objections to the newly created country to call itself
"Macedonia" and proposal that the country be called after its capital
"Skopje". In October 1991 an agreement was struck for the newly
independent country to be called FYRoM - Former Yugoslav Republic of
Macedonia. The .MK TLD was created in September 1993 following ISO 3166
naming convention. Today the country is officially listed as "North
Macedonia", again through negotiations over years at the United Nations.
Last but not least, it has been emphasized on every occasion possible,
that the ISO 3166 is not a list of recognised countries, but a
denomination of countries and territories many of which are not
sovereign territories. Thus the naming convention on ISO 3166 cannot be
used as a means to establish a territory's sovereignty and vice-versa.
I hope this gives you a bit more background to see how complex and
sensitive political situations are the realm of the United Nations and
that is why when referencing the ISO 3166 list, organisations have been
very careful to not stray from exact naming as listed in the ISO 3166
list and have therefore made sure they use and maintain that list word
for word.
Kindest regards,
Olivier
On 19/03/2024 21:16, SteveYi Yo wrote:
Dear Olivier,
Thank you for your detailed explanation regarding the ISO 3166
standards and the process by which names and codes are assigned. It's
very useful.
I understand that the ISO 3166 list is based on sources from the
United Nations, which RIPE, ICANN gTLD, and many other organizations,
follow. But you may know that the ISO 3166 standard contains three
parts. (ISO 3166-1, ISO 3166-2, ISO 3166-3). I think using ISO 3166-1
as the Country code does not have any dispute. However, the RIPE NCC
uses ISO 3166-2 as the country name which marks TAIWAN as a PROVINCE
OF CHINA. That's why I am concerned.
I'd like to highlight the importance of recognizing the diverse
perspectives that exist within the international community regarding
certain regions, including Taiwan.
As noted in my original message, other organizations, such as APNIC
and ICANN, have adopted alternative approaches to reference Taiwan.
These approaches aim to avoid political sensitivities and foster an
inclusive environment, something I believe is crucial in global
Internet Governance. (FYI, APNIC scrupulously uses "Economy" instead
of "Country", perhaps because of Chinese sensitivities.)
Accuracy and respect in the naming and classification of regions are
paramount. By considering alternative approaches that reflect the
diversity of geographical and cultural identities, we can promote a
more inclusive and respectful international dialogue.
Best,
Tsung-Yi Yu
On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 4:00 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond
<o...@gih.com> wrote:
Dear Tsung-Yi Yu,
as I've been interested in ISO 3166 matters since the early
nineties, let me try and respond simply to this.
The ISO 3166 List is maintained by the International Organization
for Standardization (ISO).
Information about the list is given on:
https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html
The Code for Taiwan is published at:
https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW
ISO has a process by which they define the naming in relation to a
code such as TW and this information comes from United Nations
sources (Terminology Bulletin Country Names and the Country and
Region Codes for Statistical Use maintained by the United Nations
Statistics Divisions).
Thus RIPE has nothing to do with the current naming convention for
TW. It just follows the ISO 3166 code.
I hope this helps,
Olivier
On 19/03/2024 14:22, SteveYi Yo wrote:
Dear Members of the Cooperation Working Group,
I am Tsung-Yi Yu from Taiwan, a user of RIPE NCC's services since
2019 with a deep interest in Global Internet Governance.
I wish to address the classification of Taiwan on RIPE NCC's
website, particularly regarding Country Codes and RIRs:
https://www.ripe.net/membership/member-support/list-of-members/list-of-country-codes-and-rirs/.
Taiwan is listed as a "Province of China," which may cause
confusion and misinterpretation.
Some of the Individuals and legal entities in Taiwan are using
RIPE NCC services like Atlas/RIPEstat. However, the current
classification does not accurately reflect Taiwan's status. I
reached out to RIPE NCC Support, learning that changes to this
classification are currently not possible since they have already
implemented the ISO-3166.
Notably, the NRO/APNIC does not refer to Taiwan as a "Province of
China" but rather by its "economy":
https://www.nro.net/list-of-country-codes-in-the-apnic-region/
and
https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/corporate/apnic-service-region/.
This approach avoids political sensitivities and ensures clarity.
As I know, the RIPE NCC is operating under a Multi-Stakeholder
model (community), and follows different guidelines from entities
like the UN/IGF. Even the ICANN, does not label Taiwan as a
"Province of China" outside its GAC committee.
That's why I would like to discuss this in here and wish the RIPE
NCC to reconsider its classification of Taiwan, promoting
accuracy and respect in global internet governance.
Please feel free to share your opinion. Thank you!
Best,
Tsung-Yi Yu
--
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, get a password reminder, or change your
subscription options, please visit:
https://lists.ripe.net/mailman/listinfo/cooperation-wg
