To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
exactly.
but if you look at it, the usa government and usa corps seems to treat those as usa domains.
tmobile.com? a usa customers page.
att.com? same.
amazon.com? same.
microsoft.com? not exactly, but close.
also, most of the reasoning for not letting icann go seems to reolve around the creation of the .xxx domain.
if a non-national top level domain was not a option, its nearest equivalent would be a .xxx.us or .xxx.iran and so on.
each nation would be free to decides in their own corner of the world, just like they have been doing for ages on other topics.
its the existence of the non-national TLDs, and usa treating them as their property, thats causing most of the noise. remove them and one remove much of the reason to have icann under usa oversight.
hell, one remove much of the need of icann i suspect...
That would include a whole lot of restructuring. .com, .net, .org, etc are all non-national TLDs. What you suggest would include dropping those as well.
Well, yes. Or rather, you phase them out over time—after the cut-off you stop accepting new registrations.
Most companies wouldn't care—they already register all the local variants of their names in the areas which they trade (to stop squatters getting hold of them).






Member since:
2005-12-02
"drop the non-national TLDs."
That would include a whole lot of restructuring. .com, .net, .org, etc are all non-national TLDs. What you suggest would include dropping those as well.