ICANN Looking to Scrap Obsolete Domain Suffixes

[Sir Regalot]

http://www.technewsworld.com/story/54616.html

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2006/12/07/tech-icann.html

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20061206/ap_on_hi_te/icann_suffixes

If Scotland becomes an independent country maybe there will no longer be a United Kingdom and .uks may go the same way.

 

[iNod]

Thats good news Except to the people who use .su in which case it is bad.

I am still confused what .int is going to do lol?

- Steve

 

[Keynes]

I am still confused what .int is going to do lol?

.int would be for international organizations (or pan-national groups)...although one would think .org is just fine...

 

[apexad]

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

 

[Mark]

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

:D No Comment I respect your Bravery in the Face of so many .mobi fans though

 

[Domainate.com]

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

Could have been worse...like .MobileInternet, lol.

 

[seeker]

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

yes, it is too long.
but I guess the couldnt use .mob or .mo
lol

 

[armstrong]

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

My guess is eventually devices would default to .mobi when typing a url, so you wouldn't need to type in ".mobi". If you want to reach another tld, then that would require entering.

 

[midnight251]

Well, I'm not a .mobi fan as well. I do agree that mobile devices should default to the .mobi extension, just because it's already out there, but do we even need a .mobi. So, when using a mobile device for the Internet, why can't they automatically convert the site to fit a mobile device regardless of extension. Are they saying that if you own abc.com, you have to re-write the site (and get the .mobi domain, abc.mobi) so the site will fit on a mobile device? Again, I really don't know too much regarding .mobi and how the sites will be rendered on mobile devices, so could someone enlighten me more regarding this. Am I missing something here.

Thanks

Midnight

 

[midnight251]

Can someone ring in on this. Why did a new extension have to be developed for mobile devices? What difference does the extension make, other than mobi stands for mobile?? Can somebody justify this? (Please read my previous post) Maybe I'm right out to lunch on this, maybe someone can set me straight, provide a good reason for the creation of .mobi (other than "it's for mobile devices").

Thanks

Midnight

 

[Keral_Patel]

Quoted: "A Google search generated millions of ".su" and ".yu" sites."

Humm..... what happens to the webmasters who have a website on the .su domain name. Vanished?

 

[midnight251]

Well, I guess you could say, this is my point. All the mobile carriers know that the sites are already developed, .com, .net, .org, etc. and a lot of time and money was spent developing these sites. So, with the technology that's out there, the mobile carriers can't convert the existing sites to fit on a mobile device?? We can split the atom, but we can't fit a .com website on a mobile device?? Again, I might be way out in left field on this one, but I would like to hear from other people regarding this. (whether or not you are a fan of .mobi or not)

Mods: Maybe we should move this thread to the Domain Name Discussion, to get more opinions (just a thought).

Thanks for your thoughts

Midnight

 

[armstrong]

Why should the carriers should be responsible for converting site content to fit mobile devices? Even if a) its technically feasible (I doubt it), and b) it becomes the norm, implementation would still vary. Besides, some content providers might take exception to such meddling. Much better to leave that to content providers.

 

[midnight251]

Why should the carriers should be responsible for converting site content to fit mobile devices? Even if a) its technically feasible (I doubt it), and b) it becomes the norm, implementation would still vary. Besides, some content providers might take exception to such meddling. Much better to leave that to content providers.

Good Point.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

Basically these companies did. They are the founders behind .mobi:

Ericsson, Google, GSM Association, Hutchison, Microsoft, Nokia, Orascom Telecom, Samsung Electronics, Syniverse, T-Mobile, Telefónica Móviles, TIM and Vodafone.

I guess they thought there would be too much competition for .tel which was also approved for a new TLD. I suppose .mob could have had a whole different meaning.

 

[wasistdas]

I dont think they will delete .SU. Too many working sites, too many investments made. The domain is high priced (85-100 USD per year), so it is not an actual cybersquatting zone. And there are over 8000 domain names registered (including 3 I have there ), it is more than many ccTLDs have. Evidently, ICANN, as money-wanting organization, is trying to force the .SU operator to switch the status of the zone from ccTLD to sTLD thus just making more money from the zone for ICANN.

 

[AdoptableDomains]

I dont think they will delete .SU. Too many working sites, too many investments made. The domain is high priced (85-100 USD per year), so it is not an actual cybersquatting zone. And there are over 8000 domain names registered (including 3 I have there ), it is more than many ccTLDs have. Evidently, ICANN, as money-wanting organization, is trying to force the .SU operator to switch the status of the zone from ccTLD to sTLD thus just making more money from the zone for ICANN.

If they really wanted to dump it, they could offer .me or .rs ccTLD's of the same name if available since those are the succeeding true country characters of most of the reportedly active .su domains. I don't think ICANN is out to change for revenue gain, but to better match with the true currently appoved IANA and UN country codes. I really don't think they would worry about 8000 domains if it involved someone not willing to run the backend to handle those ccTLD's and they could get the users taken care of in current ccTLD's. With the Soviet Union disolved, I wonder why anyone would really want to develop on the TLD anyway, other than just having a good keyword or past TLD name recognition.

 

[aliengg]

No typing of ext at all. They will have a shortcut key or automatically fill it in.

Perhaps .mobi would be a good one. I mean seriously, who came up with using a 4 letter domain for devices where typing is an issue.

 

[iNod]

We went off discussion here with the .mobi talk. This is about ICANN not .mobi lol.

Anyways. Most of those .su and .yp websites are scam and not updated anyways. However for the ones that arn't. I guess they will be forced to buy another extension? Since ALL of the registrars in Russia offering .SU will also go down, they will need to renew with .RU

I am guessing they might get a discount, but ICANN wouldn't do that.

- Steve

 

[Dave_Z]

Too bad ICANN hasn't considered scrapping themselves. And likely won't ever.

 

[wasistdas]

Why ICANN doesn't want to scrap obsolete domains .MIL and .GOV? USA has .US and they dont need .MIL and .GOV. Let's delete these two zones!

 

[Kate]

Too bad ICANN hasn't considered scrapping themselves. And likely won't ever.

Why ICANN doesn't want to scrap obsolete domains .MIL and .GOV? USA has .US and they dont need .MIL and .GOV. Let's delete these two zones!

Nice idea :blink: Or let's share the namespaces between nations
The basic idea behind the proposed reforms is that each country should get one TLD of its own in order to "play fair". After all why should the US retain more privileges :lala:

 

[AdoptableDomains]

Nice idea :blink: Or let's share the namespaces between nations
The basic idea behind the proposed reforms is that each country should get one TLD of its own in order to "play fair". After all why should the US retain more privileges :lala:

Well, at one time the Internet was ONLY a US thing. It was developed by the US Military (MIL), Government (GOV) and educational institutions (EDU). Based on history and use, I think the chance of scrapping or sharing those is pretty much nil. Some of those three TLDs have more active pages and email addresses than many country TLD's. The .gov domain is actually growing, since they are now letting state government use it and move from the heirarchical .us domains such as Ohio which now uses Ohio.gov instead of state.oh.us which it used to use as primary.

After all, the US did share the Internet itself and all its protocols with the rest of the world. For world consistency, they could create domain.gov.us as pointers to domain.gov addresses though.

Why ICANN doesn't want to scrap obsolete domains .MIL and .GOV? USA has .US and they dont need .MIL and .GOV. Let's delete these two zones!

First of all they are not obsolete. They are highly used. They just aren't consistent.

If Europe can have .eu, Asia can have .asia, and a non-country but lingual region can have .cat, then we should be able to keep our oddball TLD's.

 

[wasistdas]

That's it! The same situation with .SU and .YU. Both are highly used domains and they should not be deleted