Dot-gay bid fails again: This time because it is too gay This time last year, the applicants for the internet top-level domain .gay were stunned to find that their application to be recognized as a "community" was rejected because they weren't gay enough. After successfully arguing for re-evaluation and waiting nine months for the result, Dot Gay LLC has now been told the self-same …
"This is why we need courts "
This is bascially what they got, I decision based upon criteria...No different to a court really... but as mentioned in the below comment it is likely that someone is being greedy and waiting on a big fat check coming through his mailbox in advance of a positive decision....
This really is all about the money for ICANN isn't it? Hopefully if it comes down to a bidding war the (apparently inconsequential?) LGBT community will man the barricades and make life difficult for the commercial interests that are trying to monetise this TLD. Presumably anyone looking to buy this TLD is going to be targeting the LGBT community? If so then pissing off their target market is not a good idea.
People of sexual orientation N are looking to be accepted as anybody else, for their sexuality to not be the cause of discrimination and bias, to help this cultural embrace they want to avoid the use of general domain names and build a sexuality exclusive part of the "must not be filtered, censored or interfered with internet"?
Is it driven by some goverment? seriously is it trying to "out by web history"?
I'm on the wrong side of the fence and will doubtless break my downvote record but - making something we are told is normal accepted as normal, not even "remarkable" probably doesn't require chopping up the net to "them and us".
Powernumpty,
Almost right (I think), methinks they want to be accepted as themselves...
I see clear benefits of a .whatever where one presumes that many of the entities that would reside under said domain would primarily have a target market which clearly identifies with a given sexual preference that for whatever reason many folk decry...
Of course if any folk wish to 'censor or filter' that domain within their abode, workplace or country, that is their choice.
This bit isn't directed at you btw...
I mean calling something "disgusting", "against (deity) law", or making it illegal because those in power (politicians, spiritual 'leaders' [oxymoron alert]) are so screwed up and sexually insecure will make all the abhorrent nastyness go away....
Of course none of their voters/children/colleagues/preachers/leaders are at all not COMPLETELY 100% straight are they now?
Thanks for your input, made me think about the issue in a little more depth, pls have one on me...
Cheers,
Jay
You are talking about an ideal and using it as the basis of your argument. Furthermore the problems that gay people face are different throughout the world. Problems in the west are very different to say problems in the east, middle east or in Africa were people are jailed or killed as a result of the sexuality.
Paraphrasing an ideal then using it as a gotcha misses the point. In the real world you have to grab and make use of what you can to make life better for yourself, a concept hardly limited to the gay community.
I don't get the point behind .gay. That said it's existence hardly maligns the gay community.
I don't think the argument is that people of sexual N are looking to be accepted as anyone else as much as such people are fed up with being singled out for special attention.
Congrats on further dehumanizing the whole debate with your faux-math notation by the way. Heart on sleeve, much?
Re: your last paragraph - Are you suggesting that a .gay TLD is the same thing as creating a Tor-like "gay-only" internet? Or would you make the same argument for any non-.com TLD?
Serious question. Your intention is difficult to decipher given the context and language used.
Re: "People of sexual orientation N are looking to be accepted as anybody else" - how can someone be accepted as trait N without being allowed to identify as such?
The real TLD they should be going for is LGBTQIAGJSUERMZNP* because any person who thinks they are an oppressed minority, and technically every individual is, should be able to join the group.
* Some random letters because that's what LGBT and it follow on letters is, just a label used by those who don't like being labelled.
Nope, sorry, your logic doesn't hold. The whole point about having a TLD for the gay community is to provide a TLD for a specific subset of those who undoubtedly are discriminated against. There are likely issues specific to this demographic.
*Your disdainful footnote suggests logical confusion on your part, or a conflict of logic as you try to reconcile a world view that differs markedly from your own. It's simple really, if you accept that some people are gay and acknowledge the fact that some of them continue to suffer horrendously because of that fact then you can see why they might place importance on maintaining a strong group identity.
Gay people who continue to suffer horrendous persecution are surely the last people who'd want anything at all to do with a .gay TLD. Only those who feel comfortable and safe using sites or services identfied by a .gay TLD will allow such things to appear in the logs of their internet activity.
Wholly agree but that's not an argument for not allowing the gay community to have the TLD. A visible presence for that community would provide a rallying point for campaigns against discrimination, even if those who are still oppressed don't feel that they can use it
I don't get the difficulty with this just allow people / groups / companies whatever the ability to register TLD's for an appropriate sum of money. Appropriate here being whatever the running costs are for the DNS requests, paperwork etc. The problem then immediately goes away and people can do whatever they please with stings of characters.
In fact the only problem I see with this cunning plan is no one makes a fat profit off it!
The problem with that logic is that you get someone who is either first to apply or has the most money ends up "representing" a community they are trying to sell/co-opt rather than serve.
Yes, this does sound eerily similar tot he surrent system. Perhaps we're damned if we do...
Thinking about it more, I think maybe you're suggesting that people NOT be able to register TLDs and simply purchase a single domain within one. Would agree with that but then ICANN would have to create pretty much every possible TLD.
I recall a story about a Japanese Prime Minister who justified imposing a higher tax on imported rice because Japanese had a different alimentary canal length. He was demonstrating his power by giving an explanation that was totally unbelievable - 'not only can I refuse your request, you do not deserve a credible explanation'.
Or maybe the Knights that say Ni are a suitable comparison?
jira.domain.com, now offers something.jira.domain.com The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
