Slashdot Mirror


Iraq Wants .iq TLD

joelt49 writes "According to this USA Today article, via Yahoo! News, Iraq is seeking its own .iq Top-Level Domain (TLD). The Iraqi chairman of the National Communications & Media Commission, Siyamend Othman, said the .IQ domain name would allow Iraqis to stake a 'virtual flag' in the worldwide Internet community while American administrator Paul Bremer said it 'will signal to potential investors that Iraq is rebuilding for a high-technology future.' ICANN refuses to comment on specific applications, including this one."

87 comments

  1. low.iq by thefatz · · Score: 5, Funny

    I can see problems with this. www.whatsyour.iq

    heh....

    new blog site: www.darls.iq

    --
    http://www.freebsd.org
    1. Re:low.iq by Radical+Rad · · Score: 1

      How about their former Deputy Prime Minister getting his own vanity site?
      tar.iq

    2. Re:low.iq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, Saddam Hussein could have his own vanity site called sadist.iq

    3. Re:low.iq by Feztaa · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for fantast.iq or automat.iq or something... how about pan.iq? ;)

    4. Re:low.iq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or *.irq

    5. Re:low.iq by mwooldri · · Score: 1

      Well, the domain administrator could place a stop to all the *.iq registrations by simply setting into place a number of *.(blank).iq domains like the UK does it e.g. oilcompany.co.iq university.ac.iq charity.org.iq kurdish.kd.iq internetcompany.net.iq government.gov.iq Going off topic... what about all those countries that aspire to independence and have no Top Level Domain available? What would Scotland use were it to become independent? .sc, .st are all taken. I guess .ab for the scottish Alba... or .eo for Ecosse... (French of Scottish) ... Back on topic... I think going that way would be good. But of course, if there needs to be a money spinner sure... have a .co.iq domain for about $5-10 and a .iq domain for $40 a year. Mark.

    6. Re:low.iq by ttldkns · · Score: 1

      What would Scotland use were it to become independent

      why of course they would move onto 3 letters and have .sco

      im guessing that with an inevitable licence fee that a certian company would try to impose, domains for scotland would be around, say 379.69 GBP per year?

      --
      How many computers are too many?
  2. Drat! by bergeron76 · · Score: 2, Funny

    ... I thought I had the top [level] IQ !!!

    --
    Don't think that a small group of dedicated individuals can't change the world. It's the only thing that ever has.
    1. Re:Drat! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
      Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!!

  3. ...they don't have it already? by Hobart · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Google indicates there were at least some .IQ domains it spidered...

    IANA lists it as being there, and a little digging shows it hosted out of Texas by InfoComCorp, apparently related to Synaptix somehow.

    'course, the nameserver looks rather empty. :)

    --
    o/~ Join us now and share the software ...
    1. Re:...they don't have it already? by ForestGrump · · Score: 1

      try clicking on those links.
      nothting comes up when i clicked...

      -Grump

      --
      Is it true that more people vote for the winner of American Idol, than vote for the president? -Ali G.
    2. Re:...they don't have it already? by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 4, Informative

      From http://www.iana.org/root-whois/iq.htm:

      .iq - Iraq

      Sponsoring Organization:
      Alani Corp.
      c/o InfoCom
      630 International Parkway
      Richardson, Texas 75081
      United States

      Administrative Contact:
      Saud Alani
      Alani Corporation
      c/o InfoCom
      630 International Parkway
      Richardson, Texas 75081
      United States
      Email: alani@mynet.net
      Voice: +964 1 556 4753
      Fax: +1 972 644 8609

      Technical Contact:
      Bayan Elashi
      InfoCom Corporation
      630 International Parkway
      Suit 100
      Richardson, Texas 75081
      United States
      Email: bayan@infocomusa.com
      Voice: +1 972 644 5363
      Fax: +1 972 644 8609

      Domain Servers:

      ns1.mynet.net 63.175.195.20
      ns2.mynet.net 208.21.175.13

      URL for registration services: None listed.

      Whois server: None listed.

      Record last updated - 13-October-2002
      Record created - 09-May-1997

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    3. Re:...they don't have it already? by buelba · · Score: 1

      Alani Corp. was obviously working on behalf of someone else -- possibly Saddam although, because of long-standing U.S/UN sanctions, likely one of the exile organizations. Now that Iraq is going to have a "government," they quite reasonably want the domain back.

    4. Re:...they don't have it already? by leomekenkamp · · Score: 1

      Infocom? Now were did I hear that name before?

      --
      Wenn ist das Nunstueck git und Slotermeyer? Ja! Beiherhund das Oder die Flipperwaldt gersput.
    5. Re:...they don't have it already? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they didn't already have it, I want to know why not - IQ is the national ISO code for the country; every other nation has control of the TLD matching their ISO code, even the ones that America doesn't like, so why should Iraq have been any different?

    6. Re:...they don't have it already? by JuggleGeek · · Score: 4, Informative
      The Register has a very good article on this entire story. IMO it should have been linked in the Slashdot header for this discussion.

      InfoCom Corporation, current holder of the .IQ TLD, has gotten into big trouble for aiding terrorists. Note that this isn't the same Infocom that made Zork and all of the other adventure games. They no longer exist, but there are several Infocom fan sites available.

      http://www.4law.co.il/L1.htm for more information about the arrests of Infocom owners for aiding terrorists.

    7. Re:...they don't have it already? by tverbeek · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      This registration for a guy in Richardson TX is legitimate. After all, Iraq did recently "join" the Imperial Republic of Texas.

      --
      http://alternatives.rzero.com/
    8. Re:...they don't have it already? by Molina+the+Bofh · · Score: 0

      I wich I could mod you up. This was extremely insightful.

      --

      -
      Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
    9. Re:...they don't have it already? by kzadot · · Score: 1

      Hold on, if they put him in jail for supplying aid to freedom fighters Hamas, why dont they put Bush in jail for funding the terrorists known as the state of Israel?

  4. None of those resolve by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People can link to anything they want, and Google may still list the link. Having a link listed only means someone pointed to it, not that Google was actually able to visit.

  5. Why Not? by silverfuck · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Seriously, why should any country, no matter how small or no matter how little of the population have access to the internet (6% in this case, according to the article), not have a TLD? Okay, I know that there will be an increasing number forever, but this is an old 'who can say where the line is drawn?' situation and the solution is the same as always: there should be no line. Every country should have a TLD.

    --
    You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...
    1. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Why should any country have a TLD? What do current geographic or historical ethnic boundaries have to do with organizing information on a network?

    2. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Every country should have a TLD.
      Every country HAS a TLD. The most interesting ones (.iq, .tv, .to, ...) are though usually controlled by US based companies.

    3. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why should any country have a TLD?
      It is much more convenient for me to get a .sk domain (.sk is the country I live in) then a .com/.net/.org... one. First I have to send a payment to US which is not quite easy (most people here have a card that is not Visa compatible), then if there is some problem you have to solve it by mail and if the company decides to ignore you, you can either travel to the US or forget about getting your money back...

      And ccTLDs serve one interesting purpose: separate web sites according to their language. If you seek information in Slovak, you know you will find it in .sk domain. And if you search for a local company, first try would be www.companyname.sk.

    4. Re:Why Not? by Finuvir · · Score: 1
      Or you could just register a non-country specific domain with a local registrar. I have a .net domain registered with an Irish company.

      The language thing should be solved by correctly specified language attributes on webpages and smarter spiders but I wouldn't count on that happening soon.

      --
      Why is anything anything?
    5. Re:Why Not? by LMCBoy · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It seems to me that country TLDs are a very sensible way to organize the network.

      Quick quiz: do you have different expectations for the content at these pairs of websites, based on their different TLDs?

      • www.kde.org / www.kde.de
      • www.amazon.com / www.amazon.co.uk
      • www.nra.org / www.nra.se

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
    6. Re:Why Not? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Every country should have a TLD.

      Assuming the country in question is recognized by the United Nations? This could get tricky if you have embattled governments suffering military coups, or if territories break up or are claimed by other countries. Just a few examples off the top of my head:

      Taiwan - for all practical purposes an independent country. Just don't let the People's Republic of China hear me say that...

      Cyprus - declared independent from the UK in 1960, but today it's about half Turkish and half Greek, and may split into two territories one day.

      Palestine - not yet a state, but heading that way. Should they have a TLD?

      Falkland Islands - controlled by the UK, claimed by Argentina as the "Malvinas". Maggie Thatcher and the Argentine military rulers at the time had a pissing contest that the Iron Lady won.

      And let's not even get started with Africa...

    7. Re:Why Not? by VanillaCoke420 · · Score: 1

      Exactly. It's completely useless and outdated. Internet should be without boundaries.

  6. Why is ICANN even involved by 0x0d0a · · Score: 4, Insightful

    To avoid political controversy, ICANN *specifically* chose to use ISO country codes. This should be specifically a problem for ISO, and if the ISO standard is updated, ICANN can use the new country codes.

    1. Re:Why is ICANN even involved by SewersOfRivendell · · Score: 4, Informative

      IQ is Iraq's ISO country code. I assume this application is a legal formality of some kind.

    2. Re:Why is ICANN even involved by phaze3000 · · Score: 1
      To avoid political controversy, ICANN *specifically* chose to use ISO country codes. This should be specifically a problem for ISO, and if the ISO standard is updated, ICANN can use the new country codes.

      They haven't done that great a job of sticking to this in the past though - note it is .uk rather the .gb as it should be.

      --
      Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    3. Re:Why is ICANN even involved by ross+axe · · Score: 1
      They haven't done that great a job of sticking to this in the past though - note it is .uk rather the .gb as it should be.

      No, it should be .uk. Looks like ISO ballsed this one up.

    4. Re:Why is ICANN even involved by macshit · · Score: 1

      They haven't done that great a job of sticking to this in the past though - note it is .uk rather the .gb as it should be.

      That's because they'd probably get strung from lamp-posts if they tried to make it .gb.

      [BTW, .gb is a bit weird as a country-code in the first place, as the political unit is the United Kingdom, not "Great Britain". I wouldn't be surprised if it was the result of political horse-trading, what with the IRA and all that nastiness, etc.]

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
  7. Good. by wizbit · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Hard to see this as anything but good for Iraq. I like this step, but it'd go a ways further to rebuild their basic infrastructure (approx. 40% of Iraq still lacks potable water, electricity continues to be problematic to maintain, etc) - but with restrictions to basic freedom of information like the Great Firewall of China, I welcome any steps a free Iraq wants to take toward joining the online community.

    Truly, a great idea.

    1. Re:Good. by lachlan76 · · Score: 1

      I like this step, but it'd go a ways further to rebuild their basic infrastructure

      Iraq can still make money to pay for this infrastructure from the TLD. A .iq domain name would get at least some money.
      Tuvalu's *.tv TLD was worth three times their GDP.

      Something gives me the feeling that that would be good for Iraq.

  8. irq would lead to even more problems by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 1


    All irq are belong to us

    1. Re:irq would lead to even more problems by vijaya_chandra · · Score: 1

      Damn me! Can't even joke properly

      All your irq are belong to us

      As a second pun you can capitalise 'u' and 's' at the ending

    2. Re:irq would lead to even more problems by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      If someone called you on that and started a flamewar, it'd be an IRQ conflict! :)

  9. Why *don't* they have it? by J'raxis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Aren't all ISO3166 alpha-2 country codes automatically ccTLDs?

    1. Re:Why *don't* they have it? by lpontiac · · Score: 1

      I suppose they just never asked for it before now?

    2. Re:Why *don't* they have it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your website sucks ass. FUCK YOU for supporting the death of those on 911!!!

    3. Re:Why *don't* they have it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nah. Fuck you and fuck America, and fuck the fuckers running it.

      Like the guy's wesite says:
      Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya.
      And death to America.

    4. Re:Why *don't* they have it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!!

    5. Re:Why *don't* they have it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!!
      And death to the American empire!

      Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!!
      And death to the American empire!

  10. Come on, give them .iq by Red+Pointy+Tail · · Score: 1


    It's a no-brainer :p

  11. Who Not? by DustMagnet · · Score: 1
    Every country should have a TLD.

    Sure, but who controls it? Even in democracies, policies for TLDs have been controversial. Of course, it's not like it's oil or anything.

    --
    'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
  12. .IQ and U by g_lightyear · · Score: 4, Informative

    ccTLDs are indeed automatic - any nation officially recognized with the two-letter ISO code has the ability to get a TLD, and as you can see, one already exists.

    Here's the trouble.

    All ccTLDs, by their very nature, are a three-way agreement: a government, who actually owns the TLD; an operator, who operates the TLD, and ICANN, who provides rules and regulations. A previous Iraqi government agreed that the ccTLD operator was going to be the Texan company; however, they are now essentially demanding to be re-provided control. On the other hand, they will have existing contracts with the ccTLD that limit it - and those, if binding enough, could be difficult to break.

    Their argument, as always, is that they're a new government. A great many groups, across the world, would indeed love to get their hands on the TLD; so there's legal processes to take control over the TLD and become the official government responsible for it, as well as all of the legal wrangling with said Texan company, which probably has wholly unreasonable contracts with the previous government which are likely to still be legally binding.

    Asking ICANN to step in is a bit foolish, IMO - there's nothing that ICANN can really do to strip the Texan company of its ownership of the domain. Governments fought hard in the GAC, under Twomey, the current man at the top of ICANN, but then at the top of the GAC itself, to draw careful lines in the sand over what ICANN could and couldn't involve itself with.

    And have no doubt - with the way that the US government has handed out posts in the Iraqi government to contract out the airwaves, telecommunications, and other government contracts, even if we have this battle now, there's no doubt that all of these contracts will eventually get harsh reviews by a truly independent Iraqi government when those posts are relinquished back under the control of the Iraqi government in five years time, the length of control the U.S. will retain over those areas. That's "sovereignty" for ya - 'you can run your country, but we keep control over your resources'; keep the oil, but we keep everything else.

    After all, they rebuilt it, right? Doesn't matter if they blew it up first.

    --
    -- A mind is a terrible thing.
    1. Re:.IQ and U by Teancum · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This just goes to show how lousy ICANN is in regards to internet governance, and how U.S.-centric the current relationship between ICANN and other governments is.

      Had the at-large directors really been given substantial responsibility rather than having ICANN being governed by commercial interests, this would have been a no-brainer and been dealt with as a routine matter. The fact that the "ultimate" arbitrator right now (and the only real claim to "legitimacy" by ICANN and any TLD contracts at all) is a business contract (not even legislation in the usual sense) with the United States Department of Commerce. Yeah, that is real solid legal ground in my book when you are dealing with issues of international diplomacy and regulation of trade.

      Mind you, I'm not normally too critical of the U.S. government, but this is a clear-cut case of where the U.S.A. needs to step out of the way and acknowledge that there really is a much bigger world out there. Unfortunately, shy of a U.S. President who has a clue about technology (and I can't think of one since J.F.K.) and/or a major effort to fix this in the U.S. Congress, this situation is not going to change.

    2. Re:.IQ and U by JuggleGeek · · Score: 1
      Asking ICANN to step in is a bit foolish, IMO - there's nothing that ICANN can really do to strip the Texan company of its ownership of the domain.

      I don't think that's true under the circumstances. The Register has a good article on this.

  13. and the joke goes on... by kipple · · Score: 0, Redundant

    ...does anybody wants to pre-register "you.have.a.very.low.iq" with me?

    or perhaps a joke about the bush administration would be appreciated by the iraqis. ...whops! i'm not politically correct! now sue me.

    --
    -- There are two kind of sysadmins: Paranoids and Losers. (adapted from D. Bach)
  14. Point to note by jb.hl.com · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Iraq has no TLD.

    The Soviet Union, which may I remind you has been defunct for 13 years, possibly more, has got one, .su.

    Hmm....

    --
    By summer it was all gone...now shesmovedon. --
    1. Re:Point to note by scrytch · · Score: 1

      > Iraq has no TLD.

      % whois iq ...or...
      http://www.iana.org/root-whois/iq.htm

      Looks like iraq to me. Been around since 1997. They're applying to run the .iq NIC, get their IP allocation, and so forth. None of this has probably never been in Iraqi hands before.

      > The Soviet Union, which may I remind you has been defunct for 13 years, possibly more, has got one, .su.

      Yes, and it's slated to go away. There's some dishonest operators selling .su vanity domains, but I doubt ICANN will be moved by it. Some TLD's have already been decomissioned, such as .cg (it's now .cd)

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  15. I don't get it by some+guy+I+know · · Score: 1

    I don't get it.
    What did Iraq's TLD used to be, "PS" (Persia)?
    I believe that the ISO CC for Iraq is "iq", and, therefore, "iq" should already be Iraq's TLD, because ICANNT uses the ISO CCs to determine countries' TLDs.
    What am I missing?

    --
    Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
    1. Re:I don't get it by magefile · · Score: 3, Informative

      Right now, the .iq registrar is a Texas company (presumably) chosen by the Saddam regime. The new regime wants control - presumably so they can either run the registry themselves, have it be run by a local (Iraqi) company, or negotiate a better contract with a different country. Any of which would give them a better deal, and maybe even a cash flow to the government or the economy as a whole.

    2. Re:I don't get it by sidecut · · Score: 1

      Iraq was Mesopotamia, Iran is Persia. Don't confuse them -- Iranians (except for the leadership) speak Farsi and are not Arabs. We've never launched a war against Iran (although there was an ill-fated special forces mission to rescue the hostages back in 1980), and -- except for the leadership -- Iranians love the United States.

    3. Re:I don't get it by sidecut · · Score: 1

      Oops. I did not mean to say that the Iranian leadership does not speak Farsi. That was an editing error. The Iranian leadership does not like the United States.

    4. Re:I don't get it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Iraq was Mesopotamia, Iran is Persia.
      Oops.
      I should have known that; I watch John Stuart often enough.

      (For those who don't know, John Stuart refers to the Iraqi war/occupation as "Mess o' Potamia" on his fake news show.)
    5. Re:I don't get it by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't America engineer the removal of the Shah and bring about rule by the Ayatollahs?

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    6. Re:I don't get it by sidecut · · Score: 1

      You're very right. That's why it's ironic that ordinary Iranians love Americans. They probably don't like American leadership (especially when they seem to be threatening Iran with invasion), and the Iranian leadership certainly doesn't like America or Americans. Thomas Friedman of the New York Times has written a lot about this. I'm not some right-wing apologist -- quite the contrary.

      Iran is strange -- its people, by and large, are trying to be more free, whereas its leadership is trying to hang onto power. But then, this is probably the rule when repressive leaderhip is in power in any country. I've had friends travel to Cuba and they tell me that Americans are welcomed with open arms by ordinary Cubans. And yes, this is despite the fact of the forty-year American economic embargo of Cuba.

    7. Re:I don't get it by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      See, I find that interesting, because the last time I was in England (coincidentally, the first time I was in England) myself and my cohorts were actually accused of being Americans in disguise, as we were prominantly displaying Canadian flags, having heard about anti-American sentiment.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
    8. Re:I don't get it by sidecut · · Score: 1

      In one of the Friedman articles I read, he describes how everywhere in Iran he went this spring he was treated with courtesy, and sometimes people were eager to speak to him, buy him dinner, drinks, etc. The only time anyone gave him trouble was at a restaurant where some Europeans saw him, figured out he was American, and then verbally abused him about the war in Iraq.

    9. Re:I don't get it by sidecut · · Score: 1

      Mesopotamia is also a great B52's song from the 80's. It's pretty much a song about nothing, except to say that "there's a lot of ruins in Mesopotamia."

  16. Business plan by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. Buy/acquire a small island at least 12 miles from any other known country.
    2. Name said island "Com" and forge documents showing that it has used that name since the mid 1800s (note: it is important to establish legal precedent for the name before attempting step #3).
    3. Apply for ".com" tld.
    4. ...
    5. Profit!

    1. Re:Business plan by Entropius · · Score: 1

      bzzt.

      ccTLD's are two letters, not three.

      it'd be "cm".

  17. Iraq already has .iq by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    More information about what happened to the .iq domain administrator:

    Iraq, its domain and the 'terrorist-funding' owner

    I guess journalists should learn how to use Google to improve their IQ.

  18. Intelligent choice by gmuslera · · Score: 1
    What would be else the Iraq top level domain? Why make trouble because it have some er... "nice" sound?

    Anyway, it will depend a bit on how it will be used. I.e. here in Uruguay (.uy) you can't normally have yourdomain.uy, but yourdomain.com.uy, or .net.uy, or .edu.uy, .org.uy and .gub.uy. If in Iraq they have a similar policy the risk of being abused dillutes a lot.

    And there are far lower "uses" for an .iq domain than for other existing countries domains (i.e. Austria (.at), American Samoa (.as), Belgium (.be), India (.in), and a lot more.

    Just hope that this discussion will not end in the Bahamas domain (.bs)

  19. first things first! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Why don't they focus on getting running water and electricity first? Oh, you need an 'iq' for that.

  20. Totally Agree by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I hope there's 5million TLDs, so we can get rid of that forever.

    I don't understand the point of them (from a user perspective).

    yahoo should just be http://yahoo/index.html and if you want specific stuff, maybe http://mitsubishi.auto/index.html and mitsubishi.dvd/index.html

    I understand the problem of this in that I could register mitsubishi.autoz and try to fake their site. Also, the common sub-domains would go away, but I'd rather have this system in place. .com/.net/.org/.blah is so unnecessary.

  21. Free the domain names by Crayon+Kid · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Actually, I expect that at some point in the [distant] future, domain names will be freed from such artificial restriction as TLD's. Then we'll be able to have names like "this.is.my.butt.crack" instead of goatse.cx. And if I wanted to give people those expectations you speak of I'd prepend de. or en. or organize things through the paths on the website. Seriously now, the only thing that does make a difference nowadays is the protocol name in the url (http://). Other than respecting the dots and a certain character set (due to the design of DNS) there shouldn't be restrictions. The TLD's are mostly just a conspiracy to keep control of domain names in the hands of a few chosen ones. What does a certain termination of a domain name mean nowadays anyway? Does .de really mean that the site is German? Sure, some TLDs have restrictions (such as .fr) regarding who can buy them, but it's just the respective TLD authorities playing God. We'd be able to keep things organized without TLDs if we really wanted to.

    --
    i ate crayons when i was a kid and now i have two braincells and the blue ones taste nicer
    1. Re:Free the domain names by LMCBoy · · Score: 1

      bah, what do you know, crayon eater?!

      Just kidding, I hereby give you an official LMCBoy honorary '+1, Insightful'.

      --
      Liberal (adj.): Free from bigotry; open to progress; tolerant of others.
  22. I'm curious by megaversal · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I feel that a country should not be allowed to run their ccTLD from outside their country, and by the same token, I don't think people or businesses not affiliated in some way with the country, should be allowed to purchase domains from within that country's ccTLD.

    Are there some good reasons why one would want to go against this practice? I realize countries might not have the infrastructure to support running a ccTLD, but I think that's a larger problem... why does the country need an operational TLD if no one can run it? And for my second point.. perhaps revenue is an important reason (the .to and .nu domains come to mind, among others), but I think perhaps in this case, certain restrictions should apply. That's why we have .com, et al... for non-country-aligned domains.

    Thoughts?

    --
    Sig!
    1. Re:I'm curious by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
      I feel that a country should not be allowed to run their ccTLD from outside their country,
      Why? Is there some inherent reason why a geographic domain has to be based in that country? Where would it make more sense to put the boxes, say, for handling the internet traffic for Antartica, at Casey or Scott Base at the south pole with severe conditions, expensive connections (if any, and probably low speed) and high possibility of equipment failure, or in (better reachable and less trouble to operate) Australia or New Zealand?
      and by the same token, I don't think people or businesses not affiliated in some way with the country, should be allowed to purchase domains from within that country's ccTLD.
      Why? At least one small country that could not otherwise afford internet connectivity got it for free by selling domain names in its two-letter code space. The issue is whether a country should restrict internet addresses in that domain to locals and maybe have no internet connectivity at all, or open its space and be accessible. If someone wants to buy a domain name within a country's name space and they're willing to sell it, I see no legitimate reason to say that should be prohibited.
      Are there some good reasons why one would want to go against this practice? I realize countries might not have the infrastructure to support running a ccTLD, but I think that's a larger problem... why does the country need an operational TLD if no one can run it?
      Why should a country be denied a TLD merely because it can't afford it, when it could afford it by selling space to willing buyers?
      And for my second point.. perhaps revenue is an important reason (the .to and .nu domains come to mind, among others), but I think perhaps in this case, certain restrictions should apply.
      Why?
      That's why we have .com, et al... for non-country-aligned domains.
      So what you're saying is a rich company like Verisign should be allowed to sell domain name space to anyone, anywhere in the world in the .COM domain (and others) but poor countries who only have a geographic domain should be denied the same privelege. Nobody forces them to open their registries, nobody forces anyone to buy any names. This is an interesting argument, that the rich non-geographic domain root operators should be allowed to get even richer, but poor geographic domain root operators should stay poor or perhaps not even be able to be connected.
      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
    2. Re:I'm curious by thogard · · Score: 1

      Many of the CC TLD domains servers are run out of UC Berkeley. In some ways this make sense when you consider that many of the countries don't have even a 2mb link into the country. If someone decides to DDOS a CC TLD name server, UCB is a much better position to take the hit than some server tied off a slow 100 km link to a sat up link somewhere in the 3rd world. There are places where running the top level domain is best left to someone who understands the real world and can cope with the real issues. It doesn't matter if the real offical manages stuff over a uucp link, the name servers and whois servers need to be a reasonable net link.

    3. Re:I'm curious by megaversal · · Score: 1

      The root of my point is that a ccTLD is for a specific country. I'm not saying .com is THE answer, but I don't think the ccTLDs should be used for outside purposes.

      Your points made me think of an alternative idea. Instead of "only that country can use that country's ccTLD," perhaps a second-level domain under the ccTLD that signifies "within the country." ie. local.us or something like that.

      Of course this made me think of yet another point =) Something like the removal of .gov in favor of gov.us, or making it us.gov (and allowing all other countries to participate under the .gov TLD).

      I suppose I'm living in an ideal world, where .ccTLD refers to things within the country, but TLDs like .com, .net, .whatever aren't run by mega-corps but instead near-free-except-for-operating-costs distributed by some sort of autonomous entity (sanctioned by the UN).

      --
      Sig!
    4. Re:I'm curious by rfc1394 · · Score: 1
      Of course this made me think of yet another point =) Something like the removal of .gov in favor of gov.us, or making it us.gov (and allowing all other countries to participate under the .gov TLD).
      There is currently a .FED.US domain...
      --
      The lessons of history teach us - if they teach us anything - that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us.
  23. Re:Your sig by Teun · · Score: 1
    You know you've been IMing too long when you almost say 'lol' out loud to a non-geeky friend...

    Lol happens to be a valid Dutch word meaning *fun* or *pleasure*.

    I take you never realised you spoke Dutch :-)

    --
    "The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
  24. i'm laughing by conJunk · · Score: 1

    former requirements for "national identity":
    -> language
    -> territory
    -> self-rule

    new requirements for "national identity"?
    -> language
    -> territory
    -> self-rule
    -> TLD

  25. Death to the American empire! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tahya al-Moqawama al-Iraqiya!
    Death to the American empire!

  26. Sounds like a positive step forward by jamehec · · Score: 2, Interesting

    A nation's ccTLD is its national identity online. Their domains shouldn't be sold to just anyone. IMO, the guidelines for .fi make for a good set of rules to ensure the ccTLD in question serves the people of the country.

    Domain name speculators, look elsewhere. We have enough ccTLDs that have been exploited to death (catch a hint, .ws is for Samoa, NOT WebSite). The new government of Iraq deserves its own online identity. Let them have it.

    Call this a troll if you must. 'tis just the way I got it figured, is all.

    --
    This post made with the Dvorak layout.
    "Friends don't let friends use QWERTY"
  27. What about... by keyshawn632 · · Score: 1


    If I were an iraqi webmaster:
    1. sell some of your hidden stash of arms
    2. register www.pr0n.iq
    3. [well, you know what]
    4. Profit ! /An IPO near you soon !

    [Plus, any dissidents there should pick up www.low.iq before USA's Republican Party registers it...:p ]

  28. Whoa.. one step at a time. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There's much more important things for them to be worrying about at this point in time than TLDs.

    Get the country in order first, then we'll talk.

  29. Finally a domain for smart people!! by garyebickford · · Score: 1

    www.think.iq
    www.mensa.iq
    www.cantmatchmy.iq
    ww w.200.iq (I want this one!!)
    www.is-that-your-age-or-your.iq
    www.drugs -poison-your.iq
    Good business domain - www.test.your.iq

    And, of course, even though I'm a Republican and tired of the Bush jokes:
    www.bush.iq

    [NB: Based on his SAT scores (640,640) GW Bush's IQ is about 132, while JFK's was probably about 119. Hope I'm not starting a troll war...]

    Seriously, this will be an opportunity for the new TLD registry to be self-sustaining and even profitable very quickly. I hope they are given the new authority, and I hope that smart folks everywhere support it by registering their fave. It's a small but important symbol of the nation becoming part of the world community.

    Source for IQ info: How to estimate your IQ based on your GRE or SAT scores, one of the pages on the IQ Comparison Site. Bush SAT Info from The Straight Dope.

    Note to anyone who congratulates themselves on getting a better score than Bush: If you took the SAT since 1995, better take another look. In 1995 they adjusted the scoring of the SAT because your entire generation was scoring so much lower than all us old fogies!! Hah!!

    --
    It's easier to be a result of the past, but more fun to be a cause of the future! http://www.spacefinancegroup.com/
    1. Re:Finally a domain for smart people!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      This is a pretty good example of mis-quoting an article. The actual numbers from the straightdope page are 566 and 640. It's actual conclusion is that Bush is definitely not the smartest president but not necessarily the worst. (My opinion is not as generous, but that's MY opinion - not straightdope's...)

      Also, from the straightdope page:

      [adjusting his score to today's scale]Doing the same for Bush gives him 640 on both verbal and math, good enough for 88th percentile on the verbal and 86th in math were he entering college now. Those scores may not be as high as mine, of course, or even Al Gore's (625 verbal, 730 math unadjusted), but they ain't bad.

      Then again, I recall having seen a college guide circa 1970 that listed the average SAT for Yale freshmen as about 670 in verbal, 705 in math. So Bush was well below average for his class. He must have written a great essay.

  30. No problem here. by Raven42rac · · Score: 1

    I thought this was a war for oil, now I realise, it was a war for a TLD! But seriously, Iraq should have it's own TLD, they could always sell it like Tuvalu did (.tv)

    --
    I hate sigs.