4 ms·

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Cup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Cup "The following 32 teams, shown with final pre-tournament ra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Cup https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1998_FIFA_World_Cup "The following 32 teams, shown with final pre-tournament rankings,[11] qualified for the final tournament." " ... Romania (22) Scotland (41) Spain (15) FR Yugoslavia (8) " So obviously "international community" is a very vague term. If we were talking about anything material, like who owns an embassy building in e.g. London I'd see your point, but insisting that Yugoslavia not use a .yu domain because it was assigned to another Yugoslavia that received the name three years before it dissolved sounds like not solving problems but having an axe to grind.

lmm 3y ago
> " ... Romania (22) Scotland (41) Spain (15) FR Yugoslavia (8) " Even on that very line you've got another entity that's not an ISO country and does not have its own ccTLD, so clearly having a FIFA World Cup team is not quite the same thing as being a sovereign state. > So obviously "international community" is a very vague term. International recognition for a country is a spectrum rather than a binary, sure. > If we were talking about anything material, like who owns an embassy building in e.g. London I'd see your point, but insisting that Yugoslavia not use a .yu domain because it was assigned to another Yugoslavia that received the name three years before it dissolved sounds like not solving problems but having an axe to grind. A top-level domain is valuable and culturally important in the same way as an embassy building. If you want to argue that states that refused to recognise "FR Yugoslavia" as the successor state of Yugoslavia and allow it to hold the UN seat, government property, etc. were petty and vindictive - well, maybe they were, politics is often petty and vindictive (although I would note that what was finally agreed in 2004 was that Yugoslavia had divided into five equal successors, none of which had a special claim on its embassy buildings, domain names or anything else). Deferring to the politically recognised succession seems like the best way to insulate administration of the Internet from dealing with those disputes directly. Maintaining a separate/parallel system for listing countries and their names/abbreviations, as FIFA does, does not seem like it would be a productive use of the internet community's resources, nor would it be likely to make the disputes that would inevitably arise any less petty or vindictive.
- locallost 3y ago
  You stated that the country only claimed that it was called Yugoslavia, but it was obviously called like this, and it was accepted as such. The question of it being a succession state is not really relevant for the name. Its status as a "sovereign state" was also never questioned. Macedonia's name was never accepted (until the dispute was resolved recently by naming the country North Macedonia), and it was always referred to as FYROM - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This was again obviously not the case for Yugoslavia. A top-level domain might be of cultural importance, but it's a big stretch this was the case for Yugoslavia in 1992 when the internet barely existed and the .yu domain existed for three years (according to the article). So in reality it's a nothing burger, unless you have an axe to grind.
  - lmm 3y ago
    > it was obviously called like this, and it was accepted as such Given that it was embroiled in a dispute over the succession of Yugoslavia for the entire time that it was calling itself "FR Yugoslavia", and that dispute was resolved shortly after the country changed its name, no, it's not at all obvious that it was accepted. > The question of it being a succession state is not really relevant for the name. The question of it being a successor state is what's relevant for the domain name though. Just because you have the same name as a previous state doesn't mean you're entitled to that previous state's domain name, just like with the UN seat. > it's a big stretch this was the case for Yugoslavia in 1992 when the internet barely existed and the .yu domain existed for three years (according to the article). Who inherits the petty cash tin in the embassy in London is obviously a much smaller question than who inherits the building. But it still all has to be negotiated. > So in reality it's a nothing burger, unless you have an axe to grind. That goes both ways though - if "FR Yugoslavia"'s position is that it's a nothingburger then they can't complain about having to switch to a different domain name - and if they wanted to keep using the domain name they had been and it would be a pain to migrate, well, so did the people in Ljubljana. Ideally they would've come to a negotiated agreement to either continue to share the domain, or make a smooth transition - but like with anything else, if you can't reach an agreement on how to split it then you don't get to just take it.
jowea 3y ago
Considering the history in the region I'd assume there would be a lot of people with axes to grind... And see the (North) Macedonia drama for a clear example of a country's name being controversial.

lmm 3y ago

> " ... Romania (22) Scotland (41) Spain (15) FR Yugoslavia (8) " Even on that very line you've got another entity that's not an ISO country and does not have its own ccTLD, so clearly having a FIFA World Cup team is not quite the same thing as being a sovereign state. > So obviously "international community" is a very vague term. International recognition for a country is a spectrum rather than a binary, sure. > If we were talking about anything material, like who owns an embassy building in e.g. London I'd see your point, but insisting that Yugoslavia not use a .yu domain because it was assigned to another Yugoslavia that received the name three years before it dissolved sounds like not solving problems but having an axe to grind. A top-level domain is valuable and culturally important in the same way as an embassy building. If you want to argue that states that refused to recognise "FR Yugoslavia" as the successor state of Yugoslavia and allow it to hold the UN seat, government property, etc. were petty and vindictive - well, maybe they were, politics is often petty and vindictive (although I would note that what was finally agreed in 2004 was that Yugoslavia had divided into five equal successors, none of which had a special claim on its embassy buildings, domain names or anything else). Deferring to the politically recognised succession seems like the best way to insulate administration of the Internet from dealing with those disputes directly. Maintaining a separate/parallel system for listing countries and their names/abbreviations, as FIFA does, does not seem like it would be a productive use of the internet community's resources, nor would it be likely to make the disputes that would inevitably arise any less petty or vindictive.

locallost 3y ago
You stated that the country only claimed that it was called Yugoslavia, but it was obviously called like this, and it was accepted as such. The question of it being a succession state is not really relevant for the name. Its status as a "sovereign state" was also never questioned. Macedonia's name was never accepted (until the dispute was resolved recently by naming the country North Macedonia), and it was always referred to as FYROM - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. This was again obviously not the case for Yugoslavia. A top-level domain might be of cultural importance, but it's a big stretch this was the case for Yugoslavia in 1992 when the internet barely existed and the .yu domain existed for three years (according to the article). So in reality it's a nothing burger, unless you have an axe to grind.
- lmm 3y ago
  > it was obviously called like this, and it was accepted as such Given that it was embroiled in a dispute over the succession of Yugoslavia for the entire time that it was calling itself "FR Yugoslavia", and that dispute was resolved shortly after the country changed its name, no, it's not at all obvious that it was accepted. > The question of it being a succession state is not really relevant for the name. The question of it being a successor state is what's relevant for the domain name though. Just because you have the same name as a previous state doesn't mean you're entitled to that previous state's domain name, just like with the UN seat. > it's a big stretch this was the case for Yugoslavia in 1992 when the internet barely existed and the .yu domain existed for three years (according to the article). Who inherits the petty cash tin in the embassy in London is obviously a much smaller question than who inherits the building. But it still all has to be negotiated. > So in reality it's a nothing burger, unless you have an axe to grind. That goes both ways though - if "FR Yugoslavia"'s position is that it's a nothingburger then they can't complain about having to switch to a different domain name - and if they wanted to keep using the domain name they had been and it would be a pain to migrate, well, so did the people in Ljubljana. Ideally they would've come to a negotiated agreement to either continue to share the domain, or make a smooth transition - but like with anything else, if you can't reach an agreement on how to split it then you don't get to just take it.

jowea 3y ago

Considering the history in the region I'd assume there would be a lot of people with axes to grind... And see the (North) Macedonia drama for a clear example of a country's name being controversial.