ICANNWatch
 
  Inside ICANNWatch  
Submit Story
Home
Lost Password
Preferences
Site Messages
Top 10 Lists
Latest Comments
Search by topic

Our Mission
ICANN for Beginners
About Us
How To Use This Site
ICANNWatch FAQ
Slash Tech Info
Link to Us
Write to Us

  Useful ICANN sites  
  • ICANN itself
  • Bret Fausett's ICANN Blog
  • Internet Governance Project
  • UN Working Group on Internet Governance
  • Karl Auerbach web site
  • Müller-Maguhn home
  • UDRPinfo.com;
  • UDRPlaw.net;
  • CircleID;
  • LatinoamerICANN Project
  • ICB Tollfree News

  •   At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN  
  • icannatlarge.com;
  • Noncommercial Users Constituency of ICANN
  • NAIS Project
  • ICANN At Large Study Committee Final Report
  • ICANN (non)Members page
  • ICANN Membership Election site

  • ICANN-Related Reading
    Browse ICANNWatch by Subject

    Ted Byfied
    - ICANN: Defending Our Precious Bodily Fluids
    - Ushering in Banality
    - ICANN! No U CANN't!
    - roving_reporter
    - DNS: A Short History and a Short Future

    David Farber
    - Overcoming ICANN (PFIR statement)

    A. Michael Froomkin
    - When We Say US™, We Mean It!
    - ICANN 2.0: Meet The New Boss
    - Habermas@ discourse.net: Toward a Critical Theory of Cyberspace
    - ICANN and Anti-Trust (with Mark Lemley)
    - Wrong Turn in Cyberspace: Using ICANN to Route Around the APA & the Constitution (html)
    - Form and Substance in Cyberspace
    - ICANN's "Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy"-- Causes and (Partial) Cures

    Milton Mueller
    - Ruling the Root
    - Success by Default: A New Profile of Domain Name Trademark Disputes under ICANN's UDRP
    - Dancing the Quango: ICANN as International Regulatory Regime
    - Goverments and Country Names: ICANN's Transformation into an Intergovernmental Regime
    - Competing DNS Roots: Creative Destruction or Just Plain Destruction?
    - Rough Justice: A Statistical Assessment of the UDRP
    - ICANN and Internet Governance

    David Post
    - Governing Cyberspace, or Where is James Madison When We Need Him?
    - The 'Unsettled Paradox': The Internet, the State, and the Consent of the Governed

    Jonathan Weinberg
    - Sitefinder and Internet Governance
    - ICANN, Internet Stability, and New Top Level Domains
    - Geeks and Greeks
    - ICANN and the Problem of Legitimacy

    Highlights of the ICANNWatch Archive
    (June 1999 - March 2001)


     
    This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
    When Industry Giants Propose New TLDs | Log in/Create an Account | Top | 6 comments | Search Discussion
    Click this button to post a comment to this story
    The options below will change how the comments display
    Threshold:
    Check box to change your default comment view
    The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
    Is this really needed?
    by dtobias (dan@tobias.name) on Friday March 12 2004, @07:08AM (#13175)
    User #2967 Info | http://domains.dan.info/
    I don't really see the point in having separate TLDs for different protocols, data formats, and so on... that's the sort of thing that's already got perfectly good methods of communication not involving different TLDs. For example, there are longstanding traditions of using hostnames under a domain to represent different protocols or purposes, like 'www' for a Web server, 'ftp' for an FTP server, 'news' for an NNTP server, etc. (e.g., "www.example.net", "ftp.example.net"). "wap.example.net" is a format in wide use for mobile-specific sites using the WAP protocl and WML data format.

    Also, HTTP's format negotiation features permit HTML and WML to coexist at the same URI, with the appropriate format sent depending on the user agent.

    Having the TLD indicate the media type would seem to be putting this information at the wrong level of the logical structure. Existing TLDs like .com, .edu, etc., designate types of entities owning the site (commercial, educational, etc.), not the type of protocol used by them... all sorts of different protocols coexist on these domains.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  
    Total Score:   2  
    this is a red herring
    by Anonymous on Friday March 12 2004, @10:31AM (#13176)
    This application is designed to pass approval from ICANN. One should not assume that the application contains the actual business model planned for the tld.
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]
    Re:Is this really needed?
    by Anonymous on Friday March 12 2004, @12:23PM (#13177)
    Dan, your belief that people don't use the current tlds properly is long noted. I wouldn't dismiss the .mobile (or .mob or .tel or whatever tld is actually applied for) bid as unnecessary, because the power of these companies joining together signals a clear intent to use the DNS as a way to introduce products of clear benefit to consumers and Internet users. I say way to go mTLD consortium!
    [ Reply to This | Parent ]


    Search ICANNWatch.org:


    Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
    You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com