7 ms·

A .cloud TLD for "projects hosted in cloud platforms" sounds like an incredibly pointless and stupid idea. We never had .nix, .win32, .php, .asp, .intel or .amd

A .cloud TLD for "projects hosted in cloud platforms" sounds like an incredibly pointless and stupid idea. We never had .nix, .win32, .php, .asp, .intel or .amd TLDs to signify server properties no user should have to know about in the olden days of not worshipping the cloud. Why do we need that now?

derefr 14y ago
On the other hand, we did have .us, .ca, .uk, .nz... It's always felt to me like we need a public-registration equivalent to ".int" -- a TLD meaning "this domain represents an internationally-distributed project, not associated with any particular company or organization, nor local to any particular country." (The Webkit project is a good example. Right now it's a .org, but there is no "Webkit Organization." Most .io domains are also really in substitute of a good TLD for organization/country-neutral OSS projects.) .cloud sort of seems like a good candidate for that. There might be a better one, though.
- mynameisvlad 14y ago
  .com has basically become a catch-all which represents that.
  - derefr 14y ago
    .com was the catch-all, but I imagine the whole point of opening up TLD-space is to undo that.
    - mynameisvlad 14y ago
      So why can't it continue to be the catch-all, when anything else doesn't work? Opening up the TLD-space and .com being the catch-all aren't mutually exclusive, after all.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        Because the US government claims jurisdiction over ".com".
        mynameisvlad 14y ago
        ... So? This still doesn't explain why it can't be a catch all. Just because it's managed by Verisign and falls under US jurisdiction doesn't mean it can't be a catch-all. Someone is going to have to manage a "domain [representing] an internationally-distributed project, not associated with any particular company or organization, nor local to any particular country.", and it more than likely will be a US company. Just because the US ultimately has jurisdiction over .com doesn't mean that all .com domains are associated with a US company. That's what .us is technically for. That's why there's a ccTLD for the US. .com is meant to be a catch-all, and there's absolutely no reason it can't do that. It's doing its job quite well, and has been for years. The request for .int is someone being pedantic. Even if it's granted, it probably won't catch on and be anywhere near the popularity of .com anyway.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        .int is already in existence: http://www.un.int/ http://www.un.int/. US jurisdiction over .com is problematic because the US government routinely seizes .com domain names of websites that are legal in other countries. This doesn't affect me much as a law abiding US citizen, but it's a huge problem for 100% locally legal sites outside the US that want to have an international name.
        mynameisvlad 14y ago
        I meant his request specifically. To make it public, or have a public alternative. --- So? All governments routinely seize domain names belonging to their respective ccTLDs. ThePirateBay just got .gl seized, and I believe .se will be seized soon too. In any case, there will be someone having jurisdiction over the domain name. The TLD will fall under, most likely, the US' jurisdiction, so they'd still have seizing power. If it doesn't, then whatever organization, and, through that, country it's based in, will have their own laws, and their own seizure policies. And the laws will most likely conflict with some other country's laws. This is completely beside the original point that was made, though. Nowhere in the original comment I replied to did the author mention jurisdiction or seizures.
- swinglock 14y ago
  We still do. The US may neglect their TLD but they are heavily used elsewhere in the world.
gojomo 14y ago
Marketing! "It's not really the cloud unless it's dot-cloud." And some people would believe it.

derefr 14y ago

On the other hand, we did have .us, .ca, .uk, .nz... It's always felt to me like we need a public-registration equivalent to ".int" -- a TLD meaning "this domain represents an internationally-distributed project, not associated with any particular company or organization, nor local to any particular country." (The Webkit project is a good example. Right now it's a .org, but there is no "Webkit Organization." Most .io domains are also really in substitute of a good TLD for organization/country-neutral OSS projects.) .cloud sort of seems like a good candidate for that. There might be a better one, though.

mynameisvlad 14y ago
.com has basically become a catch-all which represents that.
- derefr 14y ago
  .com was the catch-all, but I imagine the whole point of opening up TLD-space is to undo that.
  - mynameisvlad 14y ago
    So why can't it continue to be the catch-all, when anything else doesn't work? Opening up the TLD-space and .com being the catch-all aren't mutually exclusive, after all.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      Because the US government claims jurisdiction over ".com".
      - mynameisvlad 14y ago
        ... So? This still doesn't explain why it can't be a catch all. Just because it's managed by Verisign and falls under US jurisdiction doesn't mean it can't be a catch-all. Someone is going to have to manage a "domain [representing] an internationally-distributed project, not associated with any particular company or organization, nor local to any particular country.", and it more than likely will be a US company. Just because the US ultimately has jurisdiction over .com doesn't mean that all .com domains are associated with a US company. That's what .us is technically for. That's why there's a ccTLD for the US. .com is meant to be a catch-all, and there's absolutely no reason it can't do that. It's doing its job quite well, and has been for years. The request for .int is someone being pedantic. Even if it's granted, it probably won't catch on and be anywhere near the popularity of .com anyway.
        nitrogen 14y ago
        .int is already in existence: http://www.un.int/ http://www.un.int/. US jurisdiction over .com is problematic because the US government routinely seizes .com domain names of websites that are legal in other countries. This doesn't affect me much as a law abiding US citizen, but it's a huge problem for 100% locally legal sites outside the US that want to have an international name.
        mynameisvlad 14y ago
        I meant his request specifically. To make it public, or have a public alternative. --- So? All governments routinely seize domain names belonging to their respective ccTLDs. ThePirateBay just got .gl seized, and I believe .se will be seized soon too. In any case, there will be someone having jurisdiction over the domain name. The TLD will fall under, most likely, the US' jurisdiction, so they'd still have seizing power. If it doesn't, then whatever organization, and, through that, country it's based in, will have their own laws, and their own seizure policies. And the laws will most likely conflict with some other country's laws. This is completely beside the original point that was made, though. Nowhere in the original comment I replied to did the author mention jurisdiction or seizures.
swinglock 14y ago
We still do. The US may neglect their TLD but they are heavily used elsewhere in the world.

gojomo 14y ago

Marketing! "It's not really the cloud unless it's dot-cloud." And some people would believe it.