Re: [wg-c] .com vs. ccTLDs in Europe

["Martin B. Schwimmer" <martys@interport.net>]

 The expansion of commercial and
>private (non-educational) http:// -based Internet content could not have
>happened had there not been a way to get domain names quickly and easily
>and cheaply. Try setting up a web site without one. (Sure it can be
>done--but no one does it. Think there's a reason?)

Not so sure bout that.

Try setting up a web site without a domain name, or try setting up a domain
name without a quick, easy and cheap domain name?  Could do both.

Why exclude the .edu domain from this discussion?  The .edu domain proves
that there can be numerous quick cheap and easy web sites where the
individual doesn't own the SLD?  Then there's AOL and Geocities.  I'm not
arguing that that should be the model - just that that establishes that
there is no absolute necessity between ownership of SLDs and the creation
of diverse web resources.

And how do you define quick and easy?

At what point in the domain name process would Jeff Bezos have said "gosh,
I'm giving up."  If .com had required a certificate of incorporation, or a
DBA or a TM application or a drivers license, he would have provided one.
He probably would have provided a credit card number and paid the $70
upfront, if requested (although amazon.com was probably registered during
the free era).  I'm not arguing in favor of the .es model where the
application can sit for weeks.  Just something a little less promiscuous
than the .com of, say, two months ago.

As for the .us as a model, I think the failure to thrive has more to do
with an aversion to deep hierarachies (I might even be quoting you on this
point) than with the types of restrictions we see in various ccTLDs.  If
you are arguing that the structure of .us is itself a form of regulation,
than I'm with you there.



>

@ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ @