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."
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...
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.
May we never see th
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.
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.