That sounds more like an issue of enforcement than anything. If anyone can register a domain with your country’s extension, it’s not really your country’s extension.
If we handled it properly, those domains would have value.
Yes, but when management fails the impact should not be imposed on the subordinates for following the process; it should be entirely on management.
In practice, this would mean creating a more stringent DNS approach to ccTLD’s that does not impact existing domains until if/when they choose to adopt it. Ultimately it just shows ICANN’s inadequacy &/or incompetence, which I guarantee has more to do with it’s management than it’s engineers/workers.
Ultimately it just shows ICANN’s inadequacy &/or incompetence,
I’m pretty sure it’s intentional that the owners of the top level domain set the rules for it. Why should ICANN control someone else’s portion of the internet?
This was especially a big deal as the internet expanded from the US to a global presence - you can understand why various countries wouldn’t want US control over their “territory”, wouldn’t cooperate without some form of self-determination
I’m not talking about ICANN or the US controlling other countries domains. This problem goes way back to net, org, com — basically all “rules” applied since inception were loosey goosey suggestions that depended on nothing more than convention, and were not well thought out.
So deleting .io would really be on-brand, and a continuation of that incompetence.
Not at all. The rules were developed over time as the internet expanded from a handful of us research institutions to the global presence it is today. As other people in this thread mentioned, the present country code top level domain rules were developed from fiascoes like .su and .yu. Now they do have solid rules: they should follow them, regardless of corporate speculation and profiteering
That sounds more like an issue of enforcement than anything. If anyone can register a domain with your country’s extension, it’s not really your country’s extension.
If we handled it properly, those domains would have value.
Yes, but when management fails the impact should not be imposed on the subordinates for following the process; it should be entirely on management.
In practice, this would mean creating a more stringent DNS approach to ccTLD’s that does not impact existing domains until if/when they choose to adopt it. Ultimately it just shows ICANN’s inadequacy &/or incompetence, which I guarantee has more to do with it’s management than it’s engineers/workers.
I’m pretty sure it’s intentional that the owners of the top level domain set the rules for it. Why should ICANN control someone else’s portion of the internet?
This was especially a big deal as the internet expanded from the US to a global presence - you can understand why various countries wouldn’t want US control over their “territory”, wouldn’t cooperate without some form of self-determination
Exactly, and I say this as a US citizen who benefits from a US-centric system.
I’m not talking about ICANN or the US controlling other countries domains. This problem goes way back to net, org, com — basically all “rules” applied since inception were loosey goosey suggestions that depended on nothing more than convention, and were not well thought out.
So deleting
.iowould really be on-brand, and a continuation of that incompetence.Not at all. The rules were developed over time as the internet expanded from a handful of us research institutions to the global presence it is today. As other people in this thread mentioned, the present country code top level domain rules were developed from fiascoes like .su and .yu. Now they do have solid rules: they should follow them, regardless of corporate speculation and profiteering