Talk:Country code top-level domain

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Merge Proposal[edit]

Can this page be merged with List_of_Internet_top-level_domains? Mcavic (talk) 20:44, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

No. Wwwhatsup (talk) 02:39, 3 July 2011 (UTC)
There is some information on this page which would not be suitable for transfer to List_of_Internet_top-level_domains. However, there is a list of codes on List_of_Internet_top-level_domains which is highly relevant to readers - in fact it's probably what most people are looking for when they get here - and yet this page doesn't help people find it. I am about to add a link to the top of the article in the hope of rectifying that. Rubywine (talk) 17:35, 18 July 2011 (UTC)


Google has registered in the Greenland ccTLD (.gl). The Web based .gl whois shows a 2005 registration date for the domain. At the moment it only seems to be usable with Google products. The url is on Wikipedia's URL blacklist. Jmccormac (talk) 11:46, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

actually, it's not clear who owns, only who the DNS administrator is. is apparently Google's, however.

.gl and on the ccTLD page[edit]

(moved from user talk page) The anon user was actually right about Google registering in the Greenland ccTLD. It has been registered since 2005 and it has Google's address as the registrant. So far, Google seems to be the only major player using .gl for that kind of thing. As a result I changed the .gl entry. I am not sure about how to provide a citation as the .gl whois is a web based one. Jmccormac (talk) 13:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I know about,, and, but that is not noteworthy at all and it does not constitute use of gl by google. The original page did not cite the subdomain at all. These uses are like all the second level domains under any ccTLDs. It may be noteworthy to mention in the .gl article, but not there. Kbrose (talk) 18:03, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

On second thought, I was tempted to restore the inclusion of this, but decided against it again. It is the use of a single subdomain, not a wholesale dedication of the entire TLD for the use of Google services. It's cute perhaps, but not in the general spirit of the article section. It is also not WP:notable, unless someone can produce more reliable sources, I am not sure the cnet news blurb is notable, perhaps it is as Google is involved. Kbrose (talk) 18:37, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

.ct and .cw[edit]

Does anyone remember the talk some years ago about using .ct for Catalonia? Did this ever come about? Also, in recent times, I've heard whispers of .cw for Wales (what with every combination of .c[ymru] already taken). Any thoughts on whether these bear mention? Chris talk back 21:33, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

There are no such TLDs at present. Under the current system neither Wales or Catalonia would qualify for a ccTLD unless they became independent, as only then would they be assigned codes in ISO 3166. (There are non-independent territories with codes in ISO 3166, but that's because of geographic separation, which doesn't apply to Wales or Catalonia.) There is a long history of territories that don't qualify for ccTLDs trying to pressure the IANA into giving them one anyway, and this does deserve mention in the article. The ccTLDs .ac, .gg, .im and .je were the result of the rules being temporarily relaxed due to such pressure, and .eu got through in a similar way. I saw something years ago about an attempt to get .ct for Catalonia, but I don't know if this was done by the Catalonian government or just some random bunch of Catalonians; it would be difficult to make a sensible mention of this in the article without knowing which it was. I would be surprised if Wales had ever tried to get a ccTLD. --Zundark 23:17, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
As an aside, Catalonia now has .cat, which was introduced into the root in late December 2005. It is not a ccTLD, rather a sTLD (sponsored TLD) under ICANN policy. --kjd 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Although .cat is supposedly for Catalan language and culture, rather than for Catalonia. It remains to be seen whether this will make much difference in practice. --Zundark 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It might not make much difference, but .cat is NOT a country top-level domain but a GENERIC top-level domain (that's why it has three letters as opposed to the two letter codes reserved for independent countries). It should not be included in this list. --J.Alonso 02:18, 16 April 2006 (UTC) Palestine is not an independent country and has the top level domain .ps
Why is this posted as a reply to my comment? I didn't suggest putting .cat in the list on this page (and in fact the list didn't even exist when I made the comment). --Zundark 12:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Let me just add that .gg, .im and .je are now not exceptions any longer, since the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have recently been given ISO 3166-1 codes. —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 13:33, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

On the internet[edit]

On the internet, including uses UK for ukrainean, ES for spain, MD for moldavie, for each of the countries etc... Why needs the FLAG format a three-letter code for each country ? Paul —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

.eo and .el[edit]

I heard the other day that there were suggestions for .el (Earth Lunar) and .eo (Earth Orbital) that never went through. I did a bit of snooping around and all i could find was that someone named Dave Eastabrook proposed them but they weren't accepted. Anyone think this is worth mentioning? --ThrashedParanoid 23:36, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

No. If I e-mailed ICANN and asked for .zu, would that be worth mentioning? --Zundark 23:33, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

.uk history[edit]

The article reads:

The ISO 3166-1 code for the United Kingdom is GB, however JANET had already selected uk as a top-level identifier for a pre-existing naming scheme, and this was incorporated into the top-level. gb was assigned with the intention of a transition, but this never occurred and the use of uk is now entrenched.

Is there a citation for this? My conversations with people involved in the history is that .uk was deliberately chosen over .gb in the beginning due to cultural sensitivites. --kjd 22:26, 3 January 2006 (UTC) I wouldn't be surprised. Liberal academia dictates to us all again. "GB" is culurally insensitive? Great Britain means Britain that is not Brittany as in the larger Britain, not "mighty" Britain. And UK is not without imperialist overtones as well see The Troubles. Using .uk in fact includes Northern Ireland forever in the union even if it ceases to be. Its websites will still be .uk. -- 00:38, 30 October 2007 (UTC) As the previous user has indicated, "Great Britain" and "United Kingdom" are not synonymous: Great Britain refers to England, Wales & Scotland (as opposed to plain "Britain", which originally was England and Wales), while the United Kingdom is Great Britain + Northern Ireland. Since the .uk domain extends to Northern Ireland, it is technically the more correct TLD to use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orr-Stav (talkcontribs) 23:04, 3 October 2013 (UTC)

CCTLDs that allow registration in the 2nd level to foreign entities[edit]

I've compiled a list of the CCTLDs that allow registration of 2nd level domains to foreign entities. --zobier 00:04, 26 January 2006 (UTC) (updated 2006-03-11)

And I made a few edits to the list today. I was looking for something similar (wanting to see which domains from a list allowed foreign registration) and compared the list to the respective articles on the ccTLDs themselves. Most were correct, but I there were three (.hn, .ag and .ac) that didn't match their articles in terms of allowing outside registrations (basically, if the article mentions "no restrictions" in the info box, then this corresponding list should have a * next to them. --Canuckguy 04:24, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Domains of convenience[edit]

Some countries allow anyone in the world to acquire a domain in their ccTLD, for example Austria (at) and Cocos (Keeling) Islands (cc).

A list of domains of convenience would be nice.

I have totally refactored the ccTLD listing. Enjoy :-)
HopeSeekr of xMule (Talk) 16:59, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
This is sort of what I was trying to get to with the list (see above). There is a distinction between domain authorities that allow foreign registration of 2nd level domains and ones which allow foreign registration under designated 2nd level domains. I was only concerned with the former. --zobier 03:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[edit] is mentioned as the only currently existant domain name in .gb, however it doesn't resolve, nor does whois give any information about it. Its metion should probably be removed, or edited to show that it was the last domain name in .gb, if evidence exists to support that. --Nimakha 20:21, 2 August 2006 (UTC) itself doesn't resolve, but does. I don't know if this is the only one, however. --Zundark 13:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Mh, curious. Usually, you can find all sites of a given TLD with google using "site:.??", but in this case, searching for "" gives me no hits -- and the URL you gave doesn't resolve for me, either... —Nightstallion (?) 10:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
It's not a URL, it's a domain name. There's no web site there, so it's not surprising that you can't find it on Google. It resolves to --Zundark 10:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Ah, okay. —Nightstallion (?) 13:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I've marked this as 'failed verification' because a) it doesn't resolve when I try it on my command line (I am using OpenDNS, I believe) and b) there is nothing to say that there aren't any more .gb domains. J Alexander D Atkins (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Just checked for .gb and it is still delegated. The domain name is still present in DNS even if the site is not. Jmccormac (talk) 12:55, 10 July 2013 (UTC)


Clicking the link provided in reference 3 leads me to a rickroll for some reason. It's strange because the URL looks ok. Does this happen for anyone else? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

inconsistent inclusion of "." in the ccTLD[edit]

This page states the ccTLD is 2 letters long, and the Top-Level Domain page states a TLD is the letters which follow the final dot of any domain name. I understand this to mean that the ccTLD does not contain a "."

Throughout the article, there are examples of ccTLD excluding the "." and including the ".". This seems inconsistent - from the definitions given, all examples of ccTLDs in the article should not include the ".". Kromesky 21:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the dot is a separator which isn't part of any level of the domain (aside from the "root", beneath the first level, which is technically named as a "dot" by itself; however, this dot is actually after the TLD and is seldom written). However, in referring to a TLD, it's traditional (even if technically slightly inaccurate) to write it with the dot before it, like ".com" or ".us", so Wikipedia follows common usage in this; it helps for distinguishing articles on TLDs from all the other meanings of the various two and three letter initialisms. *Dan T.* 22:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

A CCTLD (or any TLD) doesn't contain a dot, but all domains (TLD/sub) are followed by a dot. The trailing dot of domain names is often truncated. The domain name for this host is "" 06:10, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Other unused country-code TLDs[edit]

There's .cp for Clipperton Island, .dg for Diego Garcia, .ea for Ceuta and Melilla, .fx for mainland France, .ic for the Canary Islands and .ta for Tristan da Cunha. Worthy of a mention? Jess Cully 00:30, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

But there isn't .cp for Clipperton Island, .dg for Diego Garcia, etc. If they actually existed, they would be certainly be worthy of a mention, even if they were unused. But if a ccTLD does not exist, and never has, and is not even reserved (per RFC 920 and ISO 3166), then it's hard to make a case for it being worth mentioning. --Zundark 09:22, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
The codes are reserved by ISO 3166 MA, but are not recognised by IANA. It would be purely speculative to call them unused country-codes domains. --kjd 20:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Corrected who's in position to assign .bl and .mf. According to French Law, it's in the Government's hands. Reference on request MathieuW (talk) 09:54, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Which ones have free domain registration?[edit]

Hi there, I think it would be a great idea to add to this list which ones someone can register a domain at for free, or for pay. Some countries setup their domain names just to get people across the world to sign up for free (and hopefully later, pay) websites. I'm not looking to advertise for any of them, just an information thing. Rob 19:18, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Removal of "Country codes not managed by countries" section[edit]

I've removed this section (diff). See my comment to the editor (here). Content aside, this is a fairly clear case of unsourced material, and the wording is in the nature of an editorial. Gerard added the identical text in again, with an edit summary of "This is information provided by the representative of the Rwandan government at ICANN" (diff). It shouldn't be necessary to point out that an anecdotal report by an editor of a conversation with a third party is hardly a reliable source, and in any case the text is still commentary as written. If the fees of some country registrars is indeed a notable subject, there should be some reference to base a (better) paragraph on. If there is some specific ongoing dispute regarding the ".rw" registrar, again it should be easy to find sources (did this ICANN representative make a submission at the meeting, check the minutes, try Google, etc.), and the first step would probably be to incorporate any notable information in the .rw article. - David Oberst 20:55, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The right honourable representative of the BSI and advisory board member of the Wikimedia Foundation, Mrs Debbie Garside was there with me when this was said. The discussion with ICANN was made in a private session; we spoke before this happened later in the day. The point why it should be written here and not at the .rw article is because this is not an exception. GerardM 02:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate that your contribution is probably well-intentioned, but you seem to be missing the point of WP:RS. Aside from that, as I pointed out, if there is some notable issue surrounding ccTLD fees, Rwanda, or whatever that you are trying to report on, either there is some other background out there than an unsourced one-sentence third-party paraphrase of an unspecified private ICANN session, or the issue is not ripe for an encyclopedic article mention. Before deleting I tried to track down anything further on this to try and expand, rewrite and source your contribution, but drew a blank. To avoid WP:3RR, etc., I won't delete again at this time, but I've tagged the "section" as unsourced, and will try and attract some other editorial eyes from Wikipedia:Third opinion and elsewhere. - David Oberst 06:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

(Third opinion). The first thng I noticed reading the section in question is the editorial tone of the writing. It obviously pushes a particular POV of the alleged issue. The section should be rewritten to reflect a neutral voice. Beyond that, if it is purely based on a private session allegedly witnessed by someone, it should be deleted outright. Wikipedia is not the place to report our own observations and findings. Information added must be verifiable in a reliable source. If this can not be attributed to a reliable sources, it does not belong in the article, no matter how "true". Vassyana 08:10, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Just explained Reliable Sources to Gerard (he's not usually on enwiki, so much for RS being essential to wikis ;-) ). Gerard just visited ICANN along with a member of the foundation advisory board, and I was prodding him to check the article for accuracy . If he trips up over some more of our (apparently) strange en.wikipedia rules, drop me a line, and we'll sort it out. Kay?

In other news, I have here a business card of one Peter Fullarton, Executive director of RITA (The Rwanda Information Technology Authority), who we could email, and he could probably make a statement for wikinews. (which we can then use as an additional source) :-) --Kim Bruning 10:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC) --Kim Bruning 10:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

  • Yes, this is probably the approach to take. Wikinews can cover with our original reporting rules (this makes emails admissable) and then act as a source for Wikipedia. --Brianmc 11:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

I scanned through the reference (or "sauce") added by Gerard, and could find nothing especiallly relating to the cost of domains, Rwandan (or African) discontent with the existing ccTLD delegation, etc. Unless it is a secret sauce, a la Colonel Sanders, perhaps Gerard could indicate in more detail which section of this he feels has anything to do with his line of text?

This really isn't about strange wiki rules or anything, just the basics of reporting information. Who said what, to whom, where, when, why is it relevant, context, etc. This has none of that, and provides a reader (or editor) with nothing to go on. I'm not even clear as to what the issue is, other than someone somewhere seems to be agitating about ccTLD costs or control. - David Oberst 12:09, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

this artilce states:
"Several ccTLDs like the one for Rwanda are owned by companies who have policies and pricing structures that are inconsistent with the requirements of the country; the cost of a domain is more than what it costs to pay the average Rwandan for a year."
on the page .rw it states: "First registration free for citizens and companies/organizations based in Rwanda; others can register at a fee" Artlondon 17:46, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I've once again removed this section. - David Oberst 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Article additions[edit]

  • I've started a "Delegation and management" section - more detail on the relationship between ICANN/IANA, the delegees and governments can eventually be added here.
  • I've arranged three existing sections regarding ISO-3166 as subsections of a new headin "ISO-3166-1 codes and ccTLDs", which could probably use a lead paragraph of its own eventually.
  • I've removed the "Rwanda" sentence/section again (see above).
  • there is another list of ccTLDs incorporated into List of Internet top-level domains. To avoid duplication and maintenance problems, it might be useful to explore ways to merge these two somehow, whether there (with a link from here to the subsection), here (and link from there), a separate List of Internet country-code domains, etc. Any suggestions or comments? - David Oberst 22:32, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Vanity ccTLDs: what about .vu ?[edit]

I just found - probably not the first time - an URL using .vu but probably having nothing to do with Vanuatu (it's for a site written in German, I think - not sure, badly enough I've already closed the window or tab showing it). Shouldn't therefore .vu be mentioned in the § Vanity ccTLDs? Please, if you know what usage of the 'vanity' kind this ccTLD has, add the info there. BTW I probably won't be watching this place 'ad infinitum', so if you fill this 'hole' after say more than 14 days, I'd be glad to be informed on my disc' page ;-)--UKe-CH 05:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vanity ccTLDs: .is "availability" vs. "usage"[edit]

When I added that Icelandic vanity TLDs were limited in AVAILABILITY rather than USAGE I bloody well meant it. There is an extremely limited number of words which can be used such that a grammatically correct phrase or sentence can be built, hence "AVAILABILITY" (which can also apply to the ability to obtain). In order to actually obtain one of these TLDs, the registrant must have an Icelandic address and personal registration. Anyone with a TLD is more or less free to do whatever he wants with it, making the USAGE unlimited so far as people are willing to pay for such vanity URLs. BadDoggie (talk) 23:21, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

Bulgarian usage of .be[edit]

be is a ccTLD for Belgium means "be" in Bulgarian. Widely used by small Bulgarian websites because it's cheaper than a bg ccTLD.

I have never seen a Bulgarian site use the .be ccTLD; furthermore, it does not mean "be" in Bulgarian. Krum Stanoev 15:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

To clarify: there is a reason .be would be especially suitable for Bulgarian sites, but I can't explain it in linguistic terms well. Krum Stanoev 15:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Currently Google indexes 93,500 pages in Bulgarian in the ccTLD .be. This has to mean something. Xqsd (talk) 19:28, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Image query, US/UK fault[edit]

In the world map image it says that the U.S uses .gov .edu etc... But in the U.K we use those aswell for British website. so why is it just on the U.S map?--Jak3m 19:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a fault. The UK uses and rather than .gov and .edu. The .gov TLD is restricted to US government organisation and the .edu TLD is restricted to educational organisations with courses lasting longer than three years. Technically, .us is the country code TLD for the US just as .uk is the country code TLD for the UK.--Jmccormac 20:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)
Because the Internet was started in the US, this is a legacy thing based on the original rules of those TLD's. The Internet was started as a collaboration project between the US Military (.mil), the US Government (.gov), and US Educational institutions (.edu). Because the rules restrict those to US entities, other countries have adopted the same letters as subdomains in many cases as in Mbeatty 21:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Old Australian ccTLD .oz[edit]

Hi, Just wondering if the old Australian domain .oz should be added somewhere. I won't added because I'm not sure which category it belongs in. I have added it to the Historical TLDs on the main TLD page. ThanksJourneyman (talk) 01:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

.oz wasn't a TLD, since it wasn't part of the DNS. It should probably go in the pseudodomain section of the top-level domain article. --Zundark (talk) 08:51, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

East and West Germany[edit]

Were East and West Germany originally assigned separate ccTLDs? --NEMT (talk) 21:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind, should've checked the article once more. --NEMT (talk) 22:01, 9 March 2008 (UTC)


  1. .eu — European Union (code "exceptionally reserved" by ISO 3166–1)

Seems outdated to me... see .eu —Preceding unsigned comment added by My name is Jasper (talkcontribs) 13:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

The code EU is still exceptionally reserved in ISO 3166 (see ISO 3166-1 alpha-2#Exceptional reservations). This is because the European Union doesn't qualify for an ISO 3166 code, but it would be a bad idea to assign EU to some other territory (especially now that IANA has given the .eu TLD to the European Union). For some reason, the .eu article doesn't even mention ISO 3166. --Zundark (talk) 14:06, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


Anyone Please update the database for .il (dot IL)

I can't see any information on net. I am little bit busy and lazy to find out. Thanks

Bauani (talk) 10:30, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


Anyway, I found it. This is ".il – Israel"

Thanks for all of you.

Bauani (talk) 10:33, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


I don't see .nr in the (commercial and vanity) list, is there a reason for this? Britcom 17:49, 29 April 2010 (UTC)


.yu now should be moved to the 'Historical ccTLDs' part. SyP (talk) 19:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Vanity use .pr[edit]

I don't know if it's important to note, but NPR uses the .pr TLD for their custom url shortener (talk) 15:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

It's noted on Domain hack. --Cybercobra (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

ASCII ccTLDs not in ISO 3166-1[edit]

The subsection 'ASCII ccTLDs not in ISO 3166-1' opens with "Six ASCII ccTLDs are currently in use despite…" and then gives a list with five entries. Am I misreading this or should the opening sentence be edited to state "Five ASCII ccTLDs…"? Previously the list had six entries but the entry for ccTLD yu was removed in this edit: Knavesdied (talk) 18:09, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Use of International TLDs in a country article[edit]


There is currently a debate on whether International TLDs should or should not be included in the article of Singapore. Anyone is free to join the discussion. --RaviC (talk) 21:48, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

For perons' interest, a similar discussion is concluding on Talk:Northern Ireland. Frenchmalawi (talk) 02:03, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Country codes licensed for commercial use[edit]

I propose that the list of country codes licensed for commercial use should be moved to a separate page. Firstly because it would be easier to find, for anyone who is looking for it, and secondly because I don't think it properly belongs here. It seems anomalous that the article entitled "Country code top-level domains" contains the list of country codes licensed for commercial/vanity use, but not the more relevant full list of country codes which appears at List of Internet top-level domains. Any objections or comments? Rubywine (talk) 18:29, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

Since there were no objections or comments, I went ahead and created a new article, Country code top-level domains with commercial licenses. Rubywine (talk) 19:44, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
Please rephrase the title as it should reflect their "repurposed" use. Some ccTLD are already open to global registrations so the term "licenced for commercial use" is wrong. Jmccormac (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't understand your comment. Which ccTLDs are already open to global registrations, and what does "already" mean? Please be specific - i.e. give me an explanation and propose a title - and I'll rephrase it. Alternatively, you are completely welcome to retitle the article yourself. Please also note that the explanation should be added to the article, not just to this talk page. Rubywine (talk) 22:52, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
The title is long, but you will have to hear from Jmccormac what the specific suggestion would be as a title. Perhaps to parallel Internationalized country code top-level domain it might be Commercialized country code top-level domain but if it is a list article, we often phrase those in the plural, while other tld articles are singular as per convention. My basic problem is that that article is very badly sourced. Is this your own personal research? That would be dubious to keep, see WP:OR. Since we are not a directory, this might get out of date anyway. Perhaps a prose article with citations on the idea notible instances might be more likely to survive anyway. Or perhaps List of commercial top-level domains with the country codes as well as the .com and .biz etc? Actually much might just go into the table in the List of Internet top-level domains#Country code top-level domains - sourcing rules should not be relaxed just because it is a separate article. W Nowicki (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)
Jmccormac is complaining that the title is semantically incorrect, not that it is too long or phrased in the singular.
Of course the sourcing rules are not relaxed just because it is a separate article. No, the article is not my personal research, which would have been obvious to you if you had read this discussion before replying to it. I stated above that I moved the list of ccTLDs in commercial use from this article to a new article, because I believe that it does not belong inside this article. Before moving the list to the new article I left my proposal to do so here for a week and I left a signpost to this discussion on the project page, inviting comments or objections, none of which were forthcoming.
I invite anyone who is well-informed and willing to take whatever action they see fit with the content of the new article. I have no intention of making any further edits to it myself. Rubywine (talk) 02:58, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
I disagree with the title because they are sometimes referred to in the domain name industry as "repurposed" ccTLDs. The ccTLDs are often open to commercial registrations in their own country but some quirk of naming makes them more valuable to being repurposed as a global TLD. (The .tv, .nu, .co, .im, .me would be the best examples.) However these ccTLDs may still serve their local markets and have significant numbers of local registrations despite being opened to general/global registrations. Due to the way some ccTLD registries are set up, the owner of the ccTLD, (the state or the government), licences a registry company to operate the ccTLD. The whole business of ccTLDs is quite complex and unlike gTLDs where there is often a single regulatory framework, each ccTLD has to be considered on an individual basis. Splitting the list into a separate article was not a good decision as it could easily have been dealt with in the current ccTLD article. Jmccormac (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
Precisely. The best we could hope to do is mark for each domain whether it accepts registrations from persons or bodies resident in another state. We might also mark which ones actively market that and to what extent. --Red King (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)

Request for comment at talk:Northern Ireland[edit]

For information, I have opened an RfC at talk:Northern Ireland#Request for Comment, which relates to this topic. It is going formally to the Maths/Sci/Tech lists. Is there an 'Internet' list that I could add to the 'notify'? --Red King (talk) 21:11, 22 January 2013 (UTC)