Re: [RE: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot -- apparently not i n 10-23 report]

[Richard <richsc@usa.net>]

DoC's Becky Burr actually proposed that country code idea (banks.us) to me as
an option, though it still seems ergonomicaly a bit cumbersome. The idea for
the FDIC would be to have a controlled domain, the membership being literally
restricted to those with a charter, which would be easy to remember and
verify. Certainly, a chartered TLD would fit that bill, though I wonder if
unlimited TLDs could be another tower of babel. 
If we did have a TLD, unlike other TLDs I see theorized on this list, it would
carry more meaning as it would be a guarantee of insurance coverage due to the
control we'd exercise. 

In effect, unless the TLD is chartered, they would all become as meaningless
(maybe arbitrary is a better word) as .NET, for example. 

Global banks, and there are getting to be more of them, might welcome a global
TLD that would reassure global customers, but would probably be the province
of the Bank of International Settlement, or some other global group. 

Richard Campbell, 
US FDIC
aka RCampbell@FDIC.GOV



Andrew Dalgleish <andrewd@axonet.com.au> wrote:
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From:	James Love [SMTP:love@cptech.org]
> > Sent:	Saturday, April 01, 2000 02:13
> > To:	megacz@cmu.edu
> > Cc:	wg-c@dnso.org
> > Subject:	Re: [wg-c] Excellent suggestion from slashdot --
> > apparently not in 10-23 report
> > 
> > I would support the general thrust of Adam Megacz's comment.  However,
> > there should be space for exceptions.  .gov, .int, .edu and other
> > restricted domains are among the types of exceptions I am talking
> > about,
> > as well as the .usbanks (the US FDIC proposed), or the .union proposal
> > (is .naa one of these?), and some others I have heard about but which
> > have not yet surfaced, in both the commerical and non-commerical (and
> > mixed) areas.  
> [Andrew Dalgleish]  
> 
> What I don't understand is why we need TLDs in the form ".xxbanks"
> (where xx is the country code).
> 
> Surely this should be handled under the relevant ccTLD?
> (such that ".usbanks" becomes ".banks.us").
> 
> This would allow each country to regulate their own segment of the
> domain name space, according to local needs and regulations.
> 
> Keep all country-specific domains out of the global name-space.
> (This applies to *all* countries, not just the USA.)
> 
> Regards,
> Andrew Dalgleish


____________________________________________________________________
Get free email and a permanent address at http://www.amexmail.com/?A=1