Return to tldapps Forum - Message Thread - FAQ
||Tue, October 31, 2000 at 8:23 PM GMT
||Netscape Communicator V4.75 using Windows NT 5.0
||.geo plus .i = ?
SRI International has applied for the .geo TLD (Top Level Domain) under the current
ICANN application process.|
Sarnoff Corporation has applied for the .i TLD in a
joint application with Atomic Tangerine, Inc. and NextDNS, Inc. Sarnoff Corporation
is wholly owned by SRI International, Atomic Tangerine is 40% owned by SRI International
and NextDNS is a new venture whose "principal stakeholders of NextDNS include Sarnoff,
AtomicTangerine, and Arnhold and S. Bleichroeder, Inc."
The two proposals sound
quite similar in how they wax enthusiastic about the potential benefits of the TLDs.
In both cases, the DNS (Domain Name System) is to be used as a fast indexing mechanism
to allow the creation of new services.
What's extremely intriguing about this is
that the .geo proposal aims to provide access to every place on earth by providing
a name space which allows indexing of everything that has a location. The .i proposal
aims to provide access to every person and device on earth by providing a name space
which allows indexing of every person and device by a unique identifying number.
I'm willing to believe (given the fact that I've been part of a large company before)
that the two proposals were independently submitted, I do have to wonder at what
would happen if a single entity (SRI International in this case) were to control
access to two vast information spaces such as this.
[cross posted to the .geo and .i threads]
- .geo Application by SRI International Moderator, October 7 @ 10:22 PM (23/28)
- Letter of Support cgshepard, November 6 @ 12:31 AM (0/0)
- SRI Comments regarding dot-geo dot-geo, November 6 @ 12:03 AM (0/0)
- Is this TLD really needed? sking, November 5 @ 10:09 PM (0/0)
- the dot-geo and its potential positive effects Spaceman, November 5 @ 9:53 PM (0/0)
- Technical and Institutional Reservations concerning .geo kottman, November 4 @ 9:20 PM (0/0)
- Support for .Geo Proposal LStephens, November 4 @ 7:03 PM (0/0)
- Policy Questions About dot.geo jmoeller, November 3 @ 8:21 PM (0/0)
- Towards Transparency: Figuring Out the Corporate Parentage & Value Proposition of Dot.Geo Bruce Cahan, November 3 @ 5:37 PM (0/0)
- A GIS ezine looks at .geo Adena, November 2 @ 10:32 PM (0/0)
- .geo plus .i = ? adoyle, October 31 @ 8:23 PM (0/0)
- Doubts about .geo TLD ddnebert, October 30 @ 4:33 PM (0/0)
- Web3D Consortium supports .geo neiltrevett, October 29 @ 6:32 AM (0/0)
- .geo and education BlackLineFish, October 26 @ 10:43 PM (0/0)
- Letter of support dimo, October 26 @ 10:49 AM (0/0)
- Sri's .geo app peniel, October 25 @ 11:55 PM (0/0)
- Letter of Support WSchwaderer, October 25 @ 3:07 PM (0/0)
- Criticism of the SRI .geo proposal steve_l, October 24 @ 6:11 AM (0/0)
- Support for .geo by X3D & NPS brutzman, October 19 @ 4:45 PM (0/0)
- Digital Earth comment on .geo Percivall, October 19 @ 2:30 PM (1/1)
- Proposition to ICANN, Applicants & Internet Community Pistoff, October 18 @ 6:07 PM (0/0)
- .geo Application by SRI International rhyne, October 18 @ 11:14 AM (0/0)
- .geo & e-tourism jachia, October 17 @ 2:21 PM (0/0)
- .geo application web site at www.dotgeo.org Martin, October 14 @ 12:24 AM (1/4)