Return to New TLD Agreements Forum - Message Thread - FAQ

Username: dtobias
Date/Time: Fri, August 17, 2001 at 2:17 AM GMT
Browser: Netscape Communicator V5.0 using Windows dows
Subject: Content regulation


Actually, I agree with your comment that the domain registries / registrars shouldn't be policing your web content.  The original concept of the assignment of domain names was that they would be appropriate for the nature of the *entity* that registered them -- depending on whether it was a commercial company, a noncommercial organization, a university, a government agency, etc. -- not the content that happens to be hosted there, so a university wouldn't lose their .edu domain if they happened to let somebody sell something commercially in a site within their domain.

But since, except for very limited categories like the new .museum and .aero domains, policing even the nature of the entities is too difficult for a mass-market domain, it becomes necessary to leave things up to an honor system in registration, where only the registrant can judge whether, for instance, his personal hobby site that's mostly for fun but might possibly also sell some stuff, ought to be a .com or a .org (or, soon, a .name or a .info).

Too bad, though, that there's so little honor in domain registration these days, with the majority making not the slightest effort to pick names that fit in the correct category... most just get ".com" names because all the other lemmings are doing it, regardless of whether they're in any way commercial.  This is defensible for a personal site, as (until .name goes live) none of the current domain endings really fit, so either .com or .org can be a reasonable choice from what's available, but it's really silly that so many nonprofits, governmental bodies, etc. are using those dumb-ass .com addresses that imply that they're really commercial.  ""... bah, humbug.


Link: Dan's Domain Site

Message Thread:

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Cookies Policy