.edu is meant for Educational institutions, however, this is the domain limited to registration for US institutes Or Institutes who are recognized by US rating authorities.
In the United Kingdom, we have a whole slab of second-level domains for specific purposes. .ac.uk for educational establishments beyond school, .sch.uk for schools, and .bl.uk for the national library. On top of that we even have ones like .police.uk, .parliament.uk, and soon .judiciary.uk. I believe Japan has a system like this too. I can't seeing it getting much use in either. Then again, not every country has this, so it probably should be released.
It’s always interesting to browser Mozilla’s public suffix list to see all the weird and wonderful second level domains around the world: http://publicsuffix.org/list/
South Africa has a similar system, with .ac.za for academic and tertiary institutions, .city.za for municipal governments, .co.za for commercial and generic registrations, .edu.za for distance-learning institutions, .gov.za for government departments, .mil.za for the military, .school.za for schools (with provincial sub-levels like .wcape.school.za) and .org.za for non-commercial entities. It removes the need to have a .edu domain when .ac.za suffices.
So according to the article, it's not restricted to the US, it's just that the US decides who gets it and who doesn't. The article says the procedure is tedious, but I imagine it's strict so corrupt countries don't just start passing them out to anyway who can pay. People generally trust .edu domains, and they want to keep that reputation. For example, some places use .edu email addresses to identify and grant benefits to students.
"So according to the article, it's not restricted to the US, it's just that the US decides who gets it and who doesn't."
Well, a private company overseen by the US Chamber of Commerce gets to decide and is only taking guidance of eligibility from US agencies for international accreditation of educational facilities. What could possibly go wrong?
Now I'm not saying that this is completely destined to end up in abject comedic failure, but it is hardly ideal and I am sure that there are several international academic organisations that would be better stewards for this.
However, going through the website for .edu domains, it does seem pretty restrictive for anyone outside the US.
"For postsecondary institutions located outside the U.S.: As specified by the Department of Commerce, only postsecondary "U.S. institutions" that are institutionally accredited by one of the agencies on the U.S. Department of Education’s list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies may apply for new names in the .edu domain. We thus require applicants to be located within the United States (including U.S. territories and possessions); or to be licensed, chartered, or incorporated within the United States (including U.S. territories and possessions); or to be otherwise officially recognized by a U.S. state or federal government agency (including U.S. territories and possessions)."
> ...or to be otherwise officially recognized by a U.S. state or federal government agency
Why is it a bad idea to require recognition before handing out an .edu domain? As stated earlier people implicitly trust those domains and emails coming from them, and it would be downright dangerous to let untrustworthy nations hand them out to anyone.
It isn't a bad idea to require recognition, but it is a bad idea to cede control of the process of recognition of academic institutions for .edu domains to the government administration of a single nation as there is far too much potential for a conflict of interest.
Also, although there are many places a hell of a lot worse, the US is not generally thought to be the worlds most trustworthy nation, if the argument is about the potential for political corruption or interference.
I just think it makes a lot more sense for .edu to be managed by one of the established international academic NGOs.
I don't think the actual rules are as strict as the article states. The article says that only post-secondary institutions can get .edu addresses, but that's simply not true: the high school I went to has a .edu address, for example.
I often think that it would have been smarter to have dropped generic TLDs early on. As a result of various factors, it has now created an artificially constricted supply of virtual real estate that has an associated price demand pressure that is unlikely to ever ease.
My personal preference would be to see these disappear, to be replaced with more geographical focused TLDs. The .us ccTLD would have been the ideal replacement for US companies and educational establishments. .com.us and .edu.us as examples. Elsewhere in the world this is common and accepted.
For those in the US, or those who have a vested interest in the .com and .edu TLD, I imagine they would view such a suggestion with abject horror.
What about the possibility of international educational establishments, or purely online ones? There are many good reasons that an educational establishment might not want to be associated with any specific nation.
How is geography relevant on the internet? National TLDs have the exact same problem as organization-type TLDs - i.e. artificial scarcity - but the information that they convey is often less relevant than the prevailing system.
Why not relatively open expansion of TLDs? Why does there need to be a controversy every time someone proposes a new TLD?
Like pbhjpbhj mentioned, when I'm looking at a product being sold on a .co.uk domain, I know I likely won't be able to buy it. If I'm on amazon.co.uk, I know they won't sell to me. If I'm on amazon.co.de, I know the site is in German, prices are in Euro, their books will be auf Deutsche, and when I click buy, they'll likely redirect me to the .com domain where I can't buy the product in German language. When I'm looking at a service being sold on a .jp domain, I know I likely won't be able to access that service. taxis-for-hire.co.jp probably won't pick me up from the airport in Chicago.
Non-novelty country code TLDs are a good way to indicate you are doing business exclusively in that country. .com is a good catch-all, the problem with .com is that it's difficult to tell if it's a US-specific product/service or a general purpose domain.
Interesting. I was trying to buy a book in German from Amazon DE, and with my US account they would not let me buy it. Maybe I need a German account as well.
I would argue the contrary. Tying domain names to a geographic locality doesn't really make sense on a global network (there are a few exceptions -- governments, e.g.).
Why is it so important to know where an entity is allegedly located? The server may not be there, and the entity may not be either, and even if it were what difference would it make to a person browsing the web?
There are about a jillion ccTLDs that let you register a name without having a physical presence there (or indeed, ever having been there at all).
My use of geographical locality was primarily a way to reduce scarcity. That being said, you are right in that many entities that seek domain names are not geographically locked. However, I would argue that the vast majority of companies are not globally active and are geographically tied to legal company entities and local laws.
The secondary problem here, which is more in tune with the original article, is that the US government "assumes" ownership and control of generic TLDs as a God given right. They assume legal control and can arbitrarily decide to close generic domains when the activities of that domain "contravenes" US law (or more often than not, simply annoys powerful lobbying groups).
That isn't right. I'm happy to see lots of generic TLDs being used rather than geographical ccTLDs, but just not in the hands of one country. Country TLDs solve those legal issues as well. Generic TLDs are governed by a country that has very specific ideas, pressure groups, and powerful companies, acting (often) out of sync with the rest of the world.
"The secondary problem here, which is more in tune with the original article, is that the US government "assumes" ownership and control of generic TLDs as a God given right."
Well, they did create the whole system (or funded it, at least).
"I'm happy to see lots of generic TLDs being used rather than geographical ccTLDs, but just not in the hands of one country."
There's nothing to prevent the creation of new TLDs managed however you want (and in fact quite a few have been so created). It's a hassle, and expensive, but that just strengthens the point. The U.S. government (and its fundees) went through the hassle and expense of creating .com, .edu, and the others (and indeed the Internet itself). Why do you feel that others have some sort of moral right to chunks of those namespaces?
I slightly agree with your argument considering ICANN's recent launch of new gTLD .google .apple and .onandonandon (which are actually creating artificial virtual real estate), this i would say is just a unique way to get more money.
However, .edu domains and other similar domains are specific for Marketing purposes and give websites a separate identity in a specific domain.
Generic TLDs are great for institutions with true international presence. Microsoft may be based in the US, but they have tons of employees and customers nearly everywhere so it makes sense to have a generic TLD. Same goes for non-profits like UNICEF, WWF, etc.
What about accredited four-year post-secondary institutions? Sure, plenty of universities have an overseas campus or two, but these institutions really belong under country code TLDs. Cambridge is in the UK, Harvard is in the US, Todai is in Japan.
So, what's the purpose of .edu? It's a legacy domain. US colleges and universities were a significant chunk of the internet in its early days; for years it was mostly college students and professors who had internet access. Since URLs shouldn't change, we're not going to ditch it, and for uniformity, we'll keep giving out .edu addresses according to the same old policies.
(Yes, a few grandfathered .edu domains don't fit the criteria. There are random institutions like museums and high schools in there.)
The de-facto standard has become "if it doesn't have a country code TLD" it is in the US" (e.g. .net, .com etc). I think the majority of users understand this, but it's not the way it should be. This is typical American insularity.
.edu should be a second level domain under country code TLDs. Here in Australia we use .edu.au. (e.g.: csu.edu.au, sydney.edu.au, unsw.edu.au etc). I don't think the TLD of .edu should be allowed unless you are an international education institution that is not tied physically to a single geographic location (e.g. Semester at Sea). Education institutions like to use short acronyms as their domain name and we would quickly experience a shortage of domain names if they all used the .edu TLD.
That looks right, though of course it's a longer domain name. And second level domains are suboptimal in other ways: consider how much of a pain it is to figure out if site1.edu.au should be able to see cookies for site2.edu.au
Not sure if trolling, but I assume you are aware that the Internet is the result of the work on lots of different projects in different countries (Tim Berners Lee worked at CERN in Switzerland, for example). There is no such thing as an "American Internet". There is however a North Korean internet called Kwangmyong, so people are building their own :P
Tim Berners Lee worked on the World Wide Web, not the internet. The internet was well in place beofre that: usenet, emails, resulting from the work of universities, darpa, etc.
Point taken, you are right that the internet predates the World Wide Web, but as you say that resulted from the work of universities, darpa etc. The "etc" in this case is not to be neglected. While DARPA was working on ARPANET, others were working on other precursors of the modern day Internet such as X.25, CYCLADES etc. that greatly contributed to the development of critical components such as TCP/IP. The Internet certainly owes a lot to American research and military funding, but there is no such thing as an "American Internet".
Also, Usenet, email etc. are just as little "the Internet" as the world wide web is. They are all services that run on top of the Internet (the global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite).
X.25: completely separate protocol, nothing to do with TCP/IP or ARPANET.
CYCLADES: completely separate protocol.
Usenet, email: both predated the Internet and have nothing to do with it. Usenet ran over UUCP in its first incarnation, as did net mail.
Yes, X.25 is a completely separate protocol and so is CYCLADES, but they were both early packet switched networks that were influential in the development in the modern day Internet just like ARPANET. The Internet is not ARPANET, but of all the other "internets", it owes the most to ARPANET (built in the US, based off British design). Either way, there is no such thing as an "American Internet". There is just "the Internet".
No, X.25 had nothing to do with the ARPANET. X.25 did have something to do with the Internet and so did CYCLADES (both of which, by the way, came after ARPANET and was inspired by it, then inspired changes in ARPANET again). They are both packet switched networks that contributed to the Internet we have today (though arguably not as much as ARPANET).
Packet switching was, by the way, not invented in the United States, but in Britain [1], but ARPANET was the first to actually implement it, so yes, part of ARPANET was based directly off British design.
Like I said, most of the Internet we have now would never have existed (or looked quite differently) without the work of American universities or DARPA. This is not even what this is about.
This thread is about the global .edu TLD being restricted to US accredited universities, whereas it was originally intended to be open to the world. The comment I replied to was "Nobody made your country sign up for the American internet. You could have built your own...". The internet is not property of the USA, and it shouldn't be.
The USA clearly had a key role in the development role, which is cool, but don't pat your own back like that. Stay classy.
http://www.metu.edu is a Turkish university, both in Turkey and TRNC. You can send me emails to my both email accounts user@metu.edu or user@metu.edu.tr Both are same.
Where is this quote from: “The .edu domain was originally intended for educational institutions anywhere in the world, when it was launched in 1985”? This seems historically dubious. While I appreciate the argument that all educational institutions should have access to the .edu TLD, like .com the original intention was likely for US. The US dominated the early history of the Internet (and still does).
54 comments
[ 1.7 ms ] story [ 74.9 ms ] threadhttp://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4596154
If that happens I can imagine .edu becoming more popular as it may make .ac.uk seem more of a second class domain.
Well, a private company overseen by the US Chamber of Commerce gets to decide and is only taking guidance of eligibility from US agencies for international accreditation of educational facilities. What could possibly go wrong?
Now I'm not saying that this is completely destined to end up in abject comedic failure, but it is hardly ideal and I am sure that there are several international academic organisations that would be better stewards for this.
They're two very different organizations. One is a government agency, one is a lobbying group.
However, going through the website for .edu domains, it does seem pretty restrictive for anyone outside the US.
"For postsecondary institutions located outside the U.S.: As specified by the Department of Commerce, only postsecondary "U.S. institutions" that are institutionally accredited by one of the agencies on the U.S. Department of Education’s list of Nationally Recognized Accrediting Agencies may apply for new names in the .edu domain. We thus require applicants to be located within the United States (including U.S. territories and possessions); or to be licensed, chartered, or incorporated within the United States (including U.S. territories and possessions); or to be otherwise officially recognized by a U.S. state or federal government agency (including U.S. territories and possessions)."
http://net.educause.edu/edudomain/eligibility.asp
Why is it a bad idea to require recognition before handing out an .edu domain? As stated earlier people implicitly trust those domains and emails coming from them, and it would be downright dangerous to let untrustworthy nations hand them out to anyone.
Also, although there are many places a hell of a lot worse, the US is not generally thought to be the worlds most trustworthy nation, if the argument is about the potential for political corruption or interference.
I just think it makes a lot more sense for .edu to be managed by one of the established international academic NGOs.
Really US-restricted TLDs, as far as I know, are mil, gov and pro.
My personal preference would be to see these disappear, to be replaced with more geographical focused TLDs. The .us ccTLD would have been the ideal replacement for US companies and educational establishments. .com.us and .edu.us as examples. Elsewhere in the world this is common and accepted.
For those in the US, or those who have a vested interest in the .com and .edu TLD, I imagine they would view such a suggestion with abject horror.
Why not relatively open expansion of TLDs? Why does there need to be a controversy every time someone proposes a new TLD?
Legal jurisdiction, delivery of goods, payment/receipt of money, ...
Non-novelty country code TLDs are a good way to indicate you are doing business exclusively in that country. .com is a good catch-all, the problem with .com is that it's difficult to tell if it's a US-specific product/service or a general purpose domain.
I'm in the USA and I have bought things from the other amazons before, from amazon japan and amazon uk.
Why is it so important to know where an entity is allegedly located? The server may not be there, and the entity may not be either, and even if it were what difference would it make to a person browsing the web?
There are about a jillion ccTLDs that let you register a name without having a physical presence there (or indeed, ever having been there at all).
The secondary problem here, which is more in tune with the original article, is that the US government "assumes" ownership and control of generic TLDs as a God given right. They assume legal control and can arbitrarily decide to close generic domains when the activities of that domain "contravenes" US law (or more often than not, simply annoys powerful lobbying groups).
That isn't right. I'm happy to see lots of generic TLDs being used rather than geographical ccTLDs, but just not in the hands of one country. Country TLDs solve those legal issues as well. Generic TLDs are governed by a country that has very specific ideas, pressure groups, and powerful companies, acting (often) out of sync with the rest of the world.
Well, they did create the whole system (or funded it, at least).
"I'm happy to see lots of generic TLDs being used rather than geographical ccTLDs, but just not in the hands of one country."
There's nothing to prevent the creation of new TLDs managed however you want (and in fact quite a few have been so created). It's a hassle, and expensive, but that just strengthens the point. The U.S. government (and its fundees) went through the hassle and expense of creating .com, .edu, and the others (and indeed the Internet itself). Why do you feel that others have some sort of moral right to chunks of those namespaces?
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-resu...
However, .edu domains and other similar domains are specific for Marketing purposes and give websites a separate identity in a specific domain.
http://www.uniben.edu/
They redirect all web traffic to .ir, but all emails work with .edu
http://sharif.edu
What about accredited four-year post-secondary institutions? Sure, plenty of universities have an overseas campus or two, but these institutions really belong under country code TLDs. Cambridge is in the UK, Harvard is in the US, Todai is in Japan.
So, what's the purpose of .edu? It's a legacy domain. US colleges and universities were a significant chunk of the internet in its early days; for years it was mostly college students and professors who had internet access. Since URLs shouldn't change, we're not going to ditch it, and for uniformity, we'll keep giving out .edu addresses according to the same old policies.
(Yes, a few grandfathered .edu domains don't fit the criteria. There are random institutions like museums and high schools in there.)
.edu should be a second level domain under country code TLDs. Here in Australia we use .edu.au. (e.g.: csu.edu.au, sydney.edu.au, unsw.edu.au etc). I don't think the TLD of .edu should be allowed unless you are an international education institution that is not tied physically to a single geographic location (e.g. Semester at Sea). Education institutions like to use short acronyms as their domain name and we would quickly experience a shortage of domain names if they all used the .edu TLD.
Also, Usenet, email etc. are just as little "the Internet" as the world wide web is. They are all services that run on top of the Internet (the global system of interconnected computer networks that use the standard Internet protocol suite).
CYCLADES maybe had a bit of influence. X.25, nope.
Packet switching itself was, of course, also invented in the United States.
The ARPANET was not "based on British design", either.
I realize that it bothers some people that the United States invented the Internet, but that's how it was. Sorry, and you're welcome.
Packet switching was, by the way, not invented in the United States, but in Britain [1], but ARPANET was the first to actually implement it, so yes, part of ARPANET was based directly off British design.
Like I said, most of the Internet we have now would never have existed (or looked quite differently) without the work of American universities or DARPA. This is not even what this is about.
This thread is about the global .edu TLD being restricted to US accredited universities, whereas it was originally intended to be open to the world. The comment I replied to was "Nobody made your country sign up for the American internet. You could have built your own...". The internet is not property of the USA, and it shouldn't be.
The USA clearly had a key role in the development role, which is cool, but don't pat your own back like that. Stay classy.
[1] http://www.internethalloffame.org/inductees/donald-davies
from RFC1480 - http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc1480#page-3
"The US dominated the early history of the Internet (and still does)."
Only until North Korea finishes their secret time-machine (Codename: Ding-Dong).