Re: [ga] Localized TLDs

[sotiris@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx]

Danny Younger wrote:

> I started wondering what the internet might be like
> if, for example, a New York City resident could access
> local content by recourse to a .212 TLD that limited
> registrations to those that had a phone number in the
> 212 area code.

In my post http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/ga/msg03436.html
on Decemeber 16, I likened the gTLD namespace to the area code system, but
I do not support the idea of localized area code TLDs per se.  I think a
far more prudent approach would be to use the existing ccTLD hierarchy for
any such localized breakdown.

>My assumption is that such New Yorkers
> would have no problem becoming accustomed to a
> numerical TLD that corresponded with their own area
> code and would probably discover a great amount of
> utility in such a namespace.
>
> John Klensin has been fond of pointing out that the
> nature of the current naming system is such that it
> cannot support both Joe's Pizza (of Boston) and Joe's
> Pizza (of San Francisco) as only one joespizza may be
> registered in a TLD.
> http://ietfreport.isoc.org/idref/draft-klensin-dns-role/

Well, joespizza.us is currently available so I'd say that there's still at
least one opportunity for some lucky Joe... ;-)

>
> If each area code had its own TLD, then the Joe's of
> this world would have a greater opportunity to
> establish domains that corrsponded with their
> particular business identities.  Yes, it's a taxonomic
> approach with nexus requirements, but it would
> probably serve local communities better than the
> current set of alternatives.

Again, I would say a more prudent and logical approach would be to use the
existing ccTLD and to partition it further based on states/provinces and
perhaps regions or even cities; an approach will already exists in fact.

Amiably,

Sotiris Sotiropoulos