North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

  • From: Jim Popovitch
  • Date: Fri May 12 14:42:07 2006
  • Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=s1024;; h=Received:Message-ID:Date:From:User-Agent:MIME-Version:To:Subject:References:In-Reply-To:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding; b=a7bnn2+6ywAP2pGYsVRpwJlLPVxbMF7ZwTRmx0bpgrjYcvE9UC+ZnfUPG5OV2vFGuB+shUara34HxzsBN6FlE7SAjnE1FAhMMQtIHy12z1HY74DviH9oLxvTQ8efl3JYja2+GQ5U9I0ErMqwZcxvpbIHiOmcVmYLe7WuA/OrO5Q= ;

Steve Gibbard wrote:

Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc. The vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on organizational function. For large portions of the world, the local TLD allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local currency, for a price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD. For gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, at prices that are set for Americans, and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive and flaky International transit connections.
Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority and allow for multiple regional registrars. TLDs just add confusion to everything, and add complexity to the back-end.

Perhaps there is a better list to move this discussion to, if someone would point me in that direction I would be glad to check it out.

-Jim P.