Regarding in which region an island lies, a good approach is probably to refer to the IHO (International Hydrographic Organisation) publication S-23 on the limits of oceans and seas. Unfortunately the current (1952) edition removed the Antarctic or Southern Ocean as a separate region as it was deemed to be an arbitrary delineation with no clear northern geographical boundary. However work was done on a 4th Edition in 2000 which reinstated the Southern Ocean and set the limits as 60 degrees South. This edition would have been published and in force now, apart from a reservation from Argentina. So I would propose that any TZ data south of 60S, which means that Macquarie Island does not fall in to Antarctica. Tim Smartcom Software Ltd Portsmouth Technopole Kingston Crescent Portsmouth PO2 8FA United Kingdom www.smartcomsoftware.com Smartcom Software is a limited company registered in England and Wales, registered number 05641521. -----Original Message----- From: tz-bounces@iana.org [mailto:tz-bounces@iana.org] On Behalf Of Russ Allbery Sent: 18 April 2013 01:18 To: tz@iana.org Subject: Re: [tz] Proposal to change Macquarie Island to be Australian territory "David Grosz" <david@DLG.com.au> writes:
I'm not sure if this is what the issue is but politically, Macquarie Island is part of Tasmania and as such, I would have thought it should be included under Australia.
Organization into the top-level structure is by continent or oceanic region, not by political entity. Otherwise, it would be America/Honolulu, not Pacific/Honolulu. That's why Paul's reply pointed out the ambiguity of geographic classification, rather than focusing on the political classification. Classifying by political entity is a fast way to get us into trouble in more politically contentious places. Consider Atlantic/Stanley, for example. Australia is somewhat confusing in that context since it's both a political entity and a continent. -- Russ Allbery (rra@stanford.edu) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>