Discuss ISO-3166 mark TAIWAN as a Provinces of China on the RIPE NCC website
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
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
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
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
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
SteveYi Yo writes:
You might wonder why TAIWAN is labeled as PROVINCE OF CHINA in ISO 3166-2.
Note that ISO 3165-2 is NOT aboot country names but about "Country subdivision code", to quote the tttle of the ISO 3166 standard Part 2. Also, the list of List of Country Codes and RIRs on the ripe site doesn't mention 3166-2. So why do you refer to this? It doesn;t seem to make sense. jaap
Hi Jaap, ISO 3166-2 focuses on codes for country subdivisions, and it also encompasses 'Country names'. The RIPE NCC website, however, does not reference ISO 3166-2 explicitly; it only mentions ISO 3166. This suggests that they utilize a subset of ISO 3166, which likely includes parts 1, 2, and 3 of the standard. I have also asked the RIPE NCC staff, they only mention that RIPE NCC has implemented the ISO 3166. [image: CleanShot 2024-04-02 at 02.04.27@2x.png] ref: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2 My apologies if I did not clearly explain before. Thank you. Best, Tsung-Yi Yu On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 1:36 AM Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
SteveYi Yo writes:
You might wonder why TAIWAN is labeled as PROVINCE OF CHINA in ISO 3166-2.
Note that ISO 3165-2 is NOT aboot country names but about "Country subdivision code", to quote the tttle of the ISO 3166 standard Part 2.
Also, the list of List of Country Codes and RIRs on the ripe site doesn't mention 3166-2. So why do you refer to this? It doesn;t seem to make sense.
jaap
SteveYi Yo writes:
ISO 3166-2 focuses on codes for country subdivisions, and it also encompasses 'Country names'.
It does not. It only lists the subdivisons of the entities mentioned in ISO 3166-1
The RIPE NCC website, however, does not reference ISO 3166-2 explicitly; it only mentions ISO 3166.
No, it (*) mentions 3166 but refers to 3166-1 explicitly. The wiki page you mention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2) is not the official standard. apart from that, it says that ISO 3166-2 "defines codes for identifying the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1". For official information about ISO standards one should consult iso.org itself. For country codes, see <https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html> as as start. jaap * https://www.ripe.net/membership/member-support/list-of-members/list-of-count...
Hi Jaap, Thanks for sharing the official document! As far as I can see, it seems that the Short name is marked as TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW I will ask RIPE Support to check which ISO 3166 they implement, and back to here ASAP. Thank you! Best, Tsung-Yi Yu On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:37 AM Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
SteveYi Yo writes:
ISO 3166-2 focuses on codes for country subdivisions, and it also encompasses 'Country names'.
It does not. It only lists the subdivisons of the entities mentioned in ISO 3166-1
The RIPE NCC website, however, does not reference ISO 3166-2 explicitly; it only mentions ISO 3166.
No, it (*) mentions 3166 but refers to 3166-1 explicitly.
The wiki page you mention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2) is not the official standard. apart from that, it says that ISO 3166-2 "defines codes for identifying the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1".
For official information about ISO standards one should consult iso.org itself. For country codes, see <https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html> as as start.
jaap
* https://www.ripe.net/membership/member-support/list-of-members/list-of-count...
Mr. Tsung-Yi Yu, First, I would like to express my sincere sympathy for all those affected by the earthquake in Taiwan today. My thoughts are with them and with the first responders handling this crisis. Now, to your message, thank you for reaching out and for suggesting ways to address this sensitive topic. As the RIPE NCC is a neutral organisation, determining the status of nations or their names is out of our scope. For the purpose of assigning a country code to a resource holder (1), we use the ISO 3166-1 list, which is the international standard. These codes are assigned by the ISO 3166-1 Maintenance Agency based on the UN identifier chosen by the UN Statistics Division. Under ISO 3166-1 (2), Taiwan is listed as "TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA," with the country code TW, which is reflected on our website in the List of Country Codes and RIRs (3). We do not use the ISO 3166-2 codes, which have more specific information about country subdivisions, such as provinces or states, which is not relevant to our purposes. As to your suggestion that we use the term “economy” when referring to Taiwan, we appreciate the usefulness of this term in the APNIC region. However, we do not want to start deviating from the ISO, as this would cause other inconsistencies in our data. You mention a need to consider both accuracy and respect. I fully agree with you on the importance of these principles. This is precisely why we do not get involved in geopolitical disputes by selecting one person’s preferred terminology over another’s. Instead, we show our members equal respect by relying on internationally defined standards. Any disagreements over these standards should take place in the fora that create them, like the UN. Furthermore, these international standards keep registration information consistent across nations and organisations. This is what makes it possible for us to uphold the accuracy of our database and other services. I hope that this has helped explain why we operate this way, as we accommodate members from 76 countries in a service region experiencing several active conflicts. Please let us know if you would like more information about the ISO standards and how we use them. Sincerely, Hans Petter Holen Managing Director and CEO RIPE NCC References: 1) https://labs.ripe.net/author/kjerstin-burdiek/country-codes-in-the-ripe-data... 2) https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW 3) https://www.ripe.net/membership/member-support/list-of-members/list-of-count... On Tue, 2 Apr 2024 at 02:53, SteveYi Yo <steveyiyo@steveyi.net> wrote:
Hi Jaap,
Thanks for sharing the official document! As far as I can see, it seems that the Short name is marked as TAIWAN, PROVINCE OF CHINA. https://www.iso.org/obp/ui/#iso:code:3166:TW
I will ask RIPE Support to check which ISO 3166 they implement, and back to here ASAP.
Thank you!
Best, Tsung-Yi Yu
On Tue, Apr 2, 2024 at 3:37 AM Jaap Akkerhuis <jaap@nlnetlabs.nl> wrote:
SteveYi Yo writes:
ISO 3166-2 focuses on codes for country subdivisions, and it also encompasses 'Country names'.
It does not. It only lists the subdivisons of the entities mentioned in ISO 3166-1
The RIPE NCC website, however, does not reference ISO 3166-2 explicitly; it only mentions ISO 3166.
No, it (*) mentions 3166 but refers to 3166-1 explicitly.
The wiki page you mention (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISO_3166-2) is not the official standard. apart from that, it says that ISO 3166-2 "defines codes for identifying the principal subdivisions (e.g., provinces or states) of all countries coded in ISO 3166-1".
For official information about ISO standards one should consult iso.org itself. For country codes, see <https://www.iso.org/iso-3166-country-codes.html> as as start.
jaap
* https://www.ripe.net/membership/member-support/list-of-members/list-of-count...
-- -hph
participants (4)
-
Hans Petter Holen -
Jaap Akkerhuis -
Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond -
SteveYi Yo