Re: [wg-c] Geographically allocated names

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Last time I looked, ccTLDs were based on political entities, not on
geographical ones.
What is a "generic" term in ENGLISH may not be generic, or even meaningful,
in other languages and cultures.

The distinction, in other words, is between CULTURES, not between countries.

And I'm sorry, but of the cultural richness that is Europe, a two-letter
code signifying a COUNTRY is not in any way a substitute for a generic
identifier like "jedzenie" (Polish for "food"). Why should everyone in
Europe have to deal with a gTLD called ".food" when that term is meaningless
to them? Apply the same logic to every other culture in the world and you
get the idea.

In this case, I am using geography as a rough proxy for culture. It's crude,
I know, but it's better than letting a committee of 15 North Americans and
10 Europeans, all speaking English, define the gTLDs for the entire planet.

Onno Hovers wrote:

> There already is a geographically allocated naming system: ccTLDs.
> Why would you reinvent the wheel? Do you think that there is
> anything wrong with the ccTLD system? You do know that for the
> ccTLD operators the current ccTLD system is a dogma?
>
> Your proposal would require entire world regions to agree on gTLDs.
> World regions already have enough problems agreeing on more important
> things like trade, peace, etc.
>
> Regards,
> --
> Onno Hovers (onno@surfer.xs4all.nl)