ss_blog_claim=162d3c11f4bef7758b7b5d0e002ba28b

New Policies for Old Domains

CNN reports that ICANN has officially removed the domain extension “.um” (for US minor outlying islands) from the current list of domains available for registration, shortening the list from 265 to 264. The article goes on to suggest that the extension “.su” (for Soviet Union) is next on the chopping block.

The major difference here, however, is that .um was hardly used whereas .su has approximately 8,000 domains registered under it according to an article published by Mosnews last November. According to Mosnews there are many pro-Kremlin groups poised to take legal action against ICANN:

One of those is the pro-Kremlin youth group Nashi, whose website is registered with the .su suffix. “Should the domain be eliminated our lawyers will examine the issue and will stand up for the movement’s rights in court,” Nashi spokesman Robert Shlegel told Kommersant.

Another extension that is under review is “.yu” which represents the former Yugoslavia nation - Yugoslavia became Serbia and Montenegro in early 2003. Then again this is nothing new as the domain industry has been debating about the future of .yu for almost four years now. SFGate reports that Serbia and Montenegro have adpoted their own extensions (.rs and .me respectively); however, there are still millions of Google results for .su and .yu extensions.

It’s good that ICANN is moving forward by eliminating the use of outdated domain names, but if an extension is still being used should they let it remain despite the fact that the country for which it was created no longer exists? To sum it up, I’ll leave you with a relevant (and fantastically dorky) quote posted by mfh on Slashdot.org:

Obi-Wan: I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. I fear something terrible has happened.

The destruction of a domain that is of no use, is nothing to be upset about. But what happens when this motion is repeated on a larger scale when not everyone is in agreement?

Buy SEO Book

Popularity: 12% [?]



7 Comments

  • Scott Howard said on January 30th, 2007

    they can’t put in an alias to redirect??? :-)

  • Jane said on January 31st, 2007

    What happens to all the registered users with the domains they eliminate??? “Sorry, have a nice day” ??

  • Steven said on February 1st, 2007

    Old domains are part of the history so I don’t think they should be removed.

    Nice quote, btw ;)

  • Matt Coddington said on February 2nd, 2007

    I agree Steven. How hard is it honestly to “maintain” a domain extension?

  • Leroy Brown said on February 2nd, 2007

    I don’t have any of the affected domains; but imagine if you did, and it was aged and ranking very well….. kinda wrong to tell someone they have to change it. It could cause a crushing loss of income for those sites, if they are making any.

  • Matt Coddington said on March 2nd, 2007

    Bingo.

  • Matt Coddington said on March 2nd, 2007

    Exactly. That’s the reason I think ICANN should just let these domains be. How is it hurting anybody to have these extensions still up even though their original intended use is no longer necessary?

Leave A Comment



RSS feed | Trackback URI

7 Comments »

Comment by Scott Howard
2007-01-30 09:32:21

they can’t put in an alias to redirect??? :-)

 
Comment by Jane
2007-01-31 16:04:02

What happens to all the registered users with the domains they eliminate??? “Sorry, have a nice day” ??

Comment by Matt Coddington
2007-03-02 21:52:14

Bingo.

 
 
Comment by Steven
2007-02-01 00:58:37

Old domains are part of the history so I don’t think they should be removed.

Nice quote, btw ;)

Comment by Matt Coddington
2007-02-02 10:52:40

I agree Steven. How hard is it honestly to “maintain” a domain extension?

 
 
Comment by Leroy Brown
2007-02-02 14:53:01

I don’t have any of the affected domains; but imagine if you did, and it was aged and ranking very well….. kinda wrong to tell someone they have to change it. It could cause a crushing loss of income for those sites, if they are making any.

Comment by Matt Coddington
2007-03-02 21:52:59

Exactly. That’s the reason I think ICANN should just let these domains be. How is it hurting anybody to have these extensions still up even though their original intended use is no longer necessary?

 
 
Name (required)
E-mail (required - never shown publicly)
URI
Subscribe to comments via email
Your Comment (smaller size | larger size)
You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.



-->