Re: [wg-c] Geographically allocated names

[Milton Mueller <mueller@syr.edu>]

Rod:
In case you hadn't noticed, this *is* the issue before us.

We are asked to define names, or come up with a procedure for settling on a list of
names. All I am saying is that the process of coming up with those names should be
culturally broader and more representative. It would be very easy to define zones and
allow groups within those zones to develop a list of a defined number.

This is not only practical, it is politically wise. If you are familiar with debates
over resource allocation that have taken place in the ITU over the years, there is a
lot of resentment among developing countries and LDCs over resource allocation
processes which allow players who are large and powerful *now* to set in place
structures that are in force for a long time.

Commentors who say that ccTLDs are somehow a replacement or substitute for what I am
proposing do not understand what I am proposing. I'm sorry I haven't made it clearer.
A ccTLD is a two-letter code based on political entities recognized on the ISO-3166
list. A generic TLD is a three-to-six letter string that conveys some meaning or
context. No gTLD is "global" in the sense that it is a generic term recognized by all
peoples and all cultures. Therefore, make room in the name space for "generic" terms
defined by different cultures. IAHC made a slight stab in that direction with .nom.
Since we have literally hundreds of names to work with, why not take that idea a lot
farther?

Rod Dixon wrote:

> Shouldn't we really just focus upon the issues before us?
>

--
m i l t o n   m u e l l e r // m u e l l e r @ s y r . e d u
syracuse university          http://istweb.syr.edu/~mueller/