I am not saying that the com/net/org problem can now be solved easily. What I am saying is that the original design had a serious flaw, in that no one thought through the long-term implications of creating global TLDs. I am not castigating the designers either. But I would suggest that if the DNS had been designed in a smaller country, more thought would have been given to the fact that there are other countries out there. ....
It is indeed everyone's problem, but it is being solved as a US problem. And that is the heart of the matter.
-- Jim Dixon VBCnet GB Ltd http://www.vbc.net tel +44 117 929 1316 fax +44 117 927 2015
Jim, Perhaps I am getting out of depth here, but I think that I take exception to one of your premises. As has been explained to me, the original design was to name things based on the funding organization. This proved unwieldy and was replaced by naming by broad classification e.g. com, edu, gov and the like. This worked well for a number of years, with the then European Internet community actively participating. The reason that the ISO3166 codes were used was that there were some governments that insisted that they be given equal status in the DNS heirarchy. In some sense, it turned out to be almost an "Internet community or Government" style debate on where you registered. I perceive the existing ISO3166 style delegation points almost like the original "named by funding agent" model.There are just too many presumptions about policy (or lack thereof) based on the DNS lable you happen to be carrying about. So, if you were given a clean slate, how would you design the DNS namespace? -- --bill -------- Logged at Sun Sep 21 18:47:13 MET DST 1997 ---------