Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!wuarchive!psuvax1!psuvm!cunyvm!uupsi!schoff From: schoff@uu.psi.com (Martin Schoffstall) Newsgroups: comp.mail.uucp Subject: Re: UUPSI's new rules Message-ID: <1991Mar22.174928.26395@uu.psi.com> Date: 22 Mar 91 17:49:28 GMT References: <1991Mar18.162458.6587@uu.psi.com> Organization: Performance Systems International, Inc. Lines: 31 > not true. my internet managers phonebook records a "pcs.com" which is > in Germany. I believe that the NIC will not refuse to register anyone > in .com as long as they fill out the forms right. They will refuse > to register for-profit firms in ".org" and non-degree-granting > institutions in ".edu"; I think you need to jump through special hoops > to be a .net. heck, there's even Canadian and German .edu sites (free > trade agreements at work). My impression/belief-system is that (1) there are some grandfather situations (2) there have been some mistakes (3) that the issue of multinational corporations makes a number of foreign sites be placed under .COM [(3) is a big problem by the way, at this week's NorthAmerican Directory Forum, a rather large company finally agreed that the naming scheme for X.500 should not include a special place for multinationals, but a form of "symbolic links" under the ISO nation prefixes (like @c=US) would be "the standard"] > > Currently, it looks to me like the *.mn.org, *.mv.com and *.assabet.com > domains exist specifically to share a domain, and that's it. Yep. There are .ORG ones and that is probably where they belong, the .COM ones are "mistakes". Just as background to this, things are becoming even more fluid as the long time contract support that SRI did for domains and all the other good things has now been won by a DC based organization. Marty