Dear Olivier, Thank you very much for your sharing. I concur with your views that the issue of country naming is technically challenging, especially when it involves a broad range of stakeholders. First, let me explain the naming conventions you mentioned. APNIC indeed does not strictly follow the ISO 3166 naming conventions, but is only for the "economy name". I have had discussions with staff from APNIC before, who have mentioned that to resolve certain disputes, they define their service regions as "economies" instead of "countries". APNIC uses ISO 3166-1 for country codes, but does not use ISO 3166-2 for naming these countries. Taiwan is one such example. https://www.apnic.net/about-apnic/corporate-documents/documents/corporate/ap... You brought up two examples of naming disputes that were resolved through negotiations/coordination by the United Nations. The case of Taiwan might not apply here. You might wonder why TAIWAN is labeled as PROVINCE OF CHINA in ISO 3166-2. This story dates back to 1949, when the war between the Republic of China (Taiwan, ROC) and the People's Republic of China (China, PRC) ended, and the ROC retreated to Taiwan, which is when the concept of "two Chinas" emerged. This narrative continued until 1971, when the government of the PRC demanded the United Nations recognize the "One China" principle, expelling the government of the ROC in order to replace it. In October 1971, United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758 was passed, officially replacing the ROC with the PRC. https://digitallibrary.un.org/record/192054?v=pdf This continued until December 1974, when ISO released 3166, the current "Codes for the representation of names of countries and their subdivisions", labeling Taiwan as "a province of China". The government of Taiwan has been advocating for the rights to its name, demanding respect for its country name. It even filed a lawsuit for civil tort in the Court of First Instance in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2007. (The case was eventually dismissed by the Swiss Federal Court due to considerations of diplomatic recognition, ruling it lacked jurisdiction) https://www.roc-taiwan.org/uk_en/post/484.html Returning to the primary discussion, while RIPE NCC's resource services predominantly target the European region, it's important to note that its array of other services, including RIPE Stat and Atlas, have a global reach and impact. Given this extensive global presence, it's imperative to contemplate adjustments in this context. Specifically, the unpredictable nature of global dynamics means we cannot ascertain if RIPE NCC might engage with Taiwan's business sectors in the future. This consideration transcends regional boundaries, emphasizing the necessity for a globally inclusive approach. Moreover, I have included the @RIPE NCC Executive Board <exec-board@ripe.net> and other stakeholders in this mail loop, hoping to receive their response. Thank you! Best, Tsung-Yi Yu On Wed, Mar 20, 2024 at 8:21 AM Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond <ocl@gih.com> wrote:
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-count... 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 <ocl@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-count.... 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/ap.... 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