3 ms·

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,

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.
      - nitrogen 14y ago
        I assumed that the original request for an international TLD was implicitly referencing the seizures and other downsides to country-specific TLDs, since they are frequently discussed on HN. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intention of the request. Also, I don't think it's necessarily true that one country will always have jurisdiction over specific Internet names. The Internet isn't "done"; both the net and the concept of "jurisdiction" can change over time.

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.
    - nitrogen 14y ago
      I assumed that the original request for an international TLD was implicitly referencing the seizures and other downsides to country-specific TLDs, since they are frequently discussed on HN. Perhaps I misinterpreted the intention of the request. Also, I don't think it's necessarily true that one country will always have jurisdiction over specific Internet names. The Internet isn't "done"; both the net and the concept of "jurisdiction" can change over time.