The suggestion, however, was criticized by the technical community on several regards, the main problem being that the plan allowed anyone the right to register domain names in as many as three of the new TLDs, which would potentially decrease competition.
In December , IAHC drafted a report outlining its ideas for a more efficient and organized domain name system. In the final version of the report released in February , IAHC addressed an inconsistency with the definition of some top level domains.
Up until , the International Ad Hoc Committee considered. The IAHC managed to garner support, yet its report was criticized on several grounds. The technical community viewed the report as too condensed and strict, as it scheduled a day timeline for the technological development and implementation of the new TLDs. Others thought that the report gave no importance to important business issues, and that it was failing to solve the problems that it was created to solve.
One major point was that there was a lack of unity among the suggestions given by the IAHC; for instance, the introduction of the. The part of the address on the far right, such as the.
You're probably familiar with three of the most common:. There are, of course, a few more, such as. What became of the organization's plan?
By , concerns had risen over the extremely fast commercialization of the Internet -- it had only been since that commercial restrictions on the Web were lifted by the National Science Foundation NSF , and the number of computers on the Internet was doubling every three months. But Dr. Jon Postel, head of the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority IANA , an organization that managed the allocation of IP addresses , suggested revising the domain name system to account for the Internet's tremendous growth.
His initial proposal given in the month of May posed adding 50 entirely new TLDs into the mix. The plan drew a significant amount of criticism from the technical community, mostly because the plan also allowed anyone the right to register names in as many as three of the new TLDs, potentially decreasing competition.
The IAHC was essentially a large coalition -- a temporary alliance brought together to focus on one issue -- made up of the several organizations. In December , the IAHC issued a draft of a report, which outlined its ideas for what it argued was a smoother, more organized domain name system. In the report's final version, released in February , the IAHC addressed an inconsistency with the definition and nature of certain top level domain terms.
At the time of the report, TLDs were generally divided into two classes. The IAHC took issue with this, noting that the term "international" implied that the domain belonged to multiple national governments -- even though a TLD such as. The committee advised using the term generic top level domain gTLD to describe something like a. Any applicant can use a gTLD without being required to operate on an international level to do so.
The International Ad Hoc Committee specifically noted that. According to IAHC definitions,. They included:. The report also called for the formation of a large group of global registries, all under the supervision of a Council of Registrars CORE , to oversee any new registries for the proposed gTLDs.
Although the IAHC gained some support, the report was mainly criticized for several reasons. The tech community saw the report's schedule for technology development and implementation, which called for a timeline of about days, as too strict and condensed. Others felt it ignored business issues and failed to resolve the competitive problems it was attempting to address; the introduction of the. Because of a lack of unity regarding the suggestions from the IAHC, the committee dissolved soon after the release of the report, although many incarnations of its ideas were transferred to later successful proposals.
In June , however, ICANN went even further -- the board has decided to allow any public or private organization to register any combination or length of letters as a gTLD.
0コメント