Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Battle over control of CX.

By enterfornone in MLP
Mon Jan 08, 2001 at 11:08:28 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)

The Australian territory of Christmas Island is battling the Australian government over control of the CX domain. The Australian reports that the Christmas Island council has set up a organisation to manage the domain, however Australia, who have sovereignty over the Christmas Islands, and therefore over the domain, are asking for ultimate control.

The CX domain is probably best know to Kuro5hin readers as home to the goatse.cx web site [don't go there... no, really, we mean it], and as ICANN have chosen not to create an XXX or SEX top level domain, Christmas Island has the potential to make quite a lot of money selling SE.CX domains, much the same way the nation of Tuvalu makes $4 million per year on the TV domain. But as Christmas Island is an Australian Territory and not a country in its own right, should this money go to Australia, or to the Christmas Island council?

And should territories such as Christmas Island or East Timor be given top level domain when they are not actually countries. Should for example Quebec also be allowed to have a top level domain? Where do you draw the line?


Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Related Links
o Kuro5hin
o The Australian
o organisati on
o Tuvalu
o TV
o East Timor
o Also by enterfornone

Display: Sort:
Battle over control of CX. | 24 comments (17 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
It shouldn't exist, but since it does... (4.50 / 6) (#1)
by ajf on Mon Jan 08, 2001 at 08:37:24 PM EST

There's no reason for .cx (or .cc or .nf, the other Australian territory domains which are mostly used for people not in those territories) to exist. They're part of Australia.

But since they have been created, they really should be in the control of those governing the islands in question. If the Australian government's position is that these territories shouldn't be in control of their own top level domains, then they should be arguing that those domains shouldn't exist and should be phased out.

Just out of curiosity, are there any other territores of a nation which have their own tld? I seem to remember reading that .pm is controlled by the .fr registrars, who say that anyone wanting a .pm domain should use .fr instead.

"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson
doesn't really work.. (2.50 / 2) (#10)
by enterfornone on Mon Jan 08, 2001 at 10:53:27 PM EST

Why would anyone want johnhoward.fr?

efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
Depends... (3.33 / 3) (#2)
by n473 on Mon Jan 08, 2001 at 08:38:01 PM EST

Is the territory distinct? For instance giving Texas a TLD is dumb. Giving one to the US Virgin Islands or Puerto Rico (not the same but both offer rights under US law...) makes sence.

I think it really boils down to the money, but then again don't most things?

Thank you, [city name], good night!
hehe Quebec (2.33 / 3) (#9)
by spacejack on Mon Jan 08, 2001 at 09:26:45 PM EST

Don't give them ideas. This will just spark another referendum..

Masters of their Domain (4.40 / 5) (#11)
by Monster on Mon Jan 08, 2001 at 11:07:37 PM EST

Disclaimer: I have a bit of a personal interest in this, having paid for a .cx domain myself....

I see the Aussie claim to .cx to be roughly equivalent to the former USSR's control of extra seats in the General Assembly for Belarus and Ukraine. If there is no independent authority to the domain, then there is no need for a separate domain at all. The .cx domain belongs to Christmas Island, or there shouldn't be one in the first place. Just make it a subdomain (I would have ware.cx.au) in that case. And don't expect to get any more of my money if you do.


What nation is East Timor a territoy of? (3.00 / 1) (#12)
by Spinoza on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 12:03:19 AM EST

Enlighten me. I thought they'd voted for independence, undergone a short brutal conflict, and more or less achieved nationhood not long ago. Did I miss something?

Indonesia (none / 0) (#13)
by enterfornone on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 12:16:11 AM EST

I'm fairly sure East Timor is still a territory of Indonesia. They voted for independance a while back but it was not recognised by the Indonesian government. I think at present they are being administered by the UN but I can't find any reference to exactly what the situation is. I'm fairly sure it's not all settled yet however.

efn 26/m/syd
Will sponsor new accounts for porn.
[ Parent ]
UN administration (none / 0) (#14)
by Spinoza on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 12:33:45 AM EST

They're not really a part of Indonesia any more, as far as I can tell. I think the UN is just managing their transition to nationhood. It's probably not really a good idea to refer to East Timor as a territory of Indonesia, after the events of the last couple of years, even if it may not be completely inaccurate.

[ Parent ]
Ratified, reluctantly, by Indonesia (none / 0) (#16)
by goonie on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 05:42:17 AM EST

In the middle of all the carnage, Clinton basically bitchslapped Indonesia into accepting East Timorese independence by threatening to cut off their IMF loans. The territory is a UN protectorate at the moment (by the way, the UN administration, though infinitely better than a murderous army occupation, is reportedly the usual incompetant bureacracy), and will get its independence in the medium term - I think it's going to be a couple of years.

[ Parent ]
Forgive me (none / 0) (#20)
by Robert Gormley on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 07:54:52 AM EST

... anti US rant ahead. Clinton controls the IMF now?

If the US was so interested in East Timor, where are their troops? As it stands, Australian (and other nations) troops are expected to be in East Timor for the next five years at least.

[ Parent ]

In this case, yes he does (none / 0) (#22)
by goonie on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 07:46:17 PM EST

Not liking the power of the US and its president is not the same thing thing as not accepting that it exists. If the US president wants the IMF to do something (particularly when the Europeans back him up like they undoubtedly did on this occasion) it gets done.

Yes, it would have been kind of nice if the US had provided some troops for the East Timor operation, seeing we (yes I'm an Aussie) have gone and helped them every time they ask. However, they did provide a whole bunch of equipment, and I'd expect they're also providing signal and satellite intelligence, so it's not like they're not doing anything.

[ Parent ]

Geographical domains? Rubbish! (4.66 / 3) (#17)
by yojimbo-san on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 06:04:16 AM EST

The "opposite" of the Christmas Island situation occured a few years ago (around 1996) for the (British) Channel Islands, and I had a few discussions with IANA/Jon Postel about these at the time - now .gg and .je.

These strongly indicate to me that ICANN do not now have, and never had, a solid rule on what consitiutes a valid geographical TLD, which is what allows the .cx confusion to exist in the first place.

The bottom line then was that a scheme had been chosen for geographical TLDs, and that scheme was the ISO 3166 list of two-letter country codes. Except for the exceptions. And those exceptions followed no rule.

Now, I found that an interesting attitude. The ISO table had allocated an entry for "Great Britain" which is politically very different from "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". The net community, before adopting ISO 3166, had used .uk for Britain in the same way that the Australians had used .oz (i.e. by private concensus. Actually, as far as I can find, .oz was created by the University of Sydney. I'm hunting down more info. See Roger Clarke's Brief History of the Internet in Australia).

However, where the Australians eventually reallocated all their names from .au, no such measure was required for .uk - in fact, .gb was listed as "depreciated". In the case of the Channel Islands, although self-governed (and therefore not part of the "UK"), they still have the Queen as the head of government, and also firmly belong to the entity "Great Britain". We wanted to be able to issue domain names for Channel Island entities outside of .uk, and thought that .gb would be the ideal place for them. Jon would not allow a registry for .gb to be created. This was probably due to the common mis-apprehension that because the full name for the UK includes the phrase "Great Britain", the UK must be a superset of GB, where in fact the situation is the reverse.

The other option was that each governed area should have it's own TLD. To this end, it was suggested that the Islands' should apply for their own ISO 3166 code. This would be an extremely slow process! I believe that the ISO 3166 committee only meets once every 4 years. A variation on this view was what eventually persuaded Jon Postel to ratify .gg and .je, which (IIRC) are international postal codes.

So now the exceptions to the geographical TLDs included .gg and .je (and .im for the Isle of Man, in a similar political situation). I can't currently find the "definition" of geographical TLDs, but I suspect that ICANN have done away with any formulaic definition, because of the number of exceptions they have allowed.

So, to recap - geographical TLDs do not follow a fixed allocation rule. Therefore arguments based on the supposed "fixed and valid" status of a TLD based on it's existance are, unfortunately, unstable.

Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim

Update on ISO3166 status (4.00 / 1) (#19)
by yojimbo-san on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 06:25:03 AM EST

Just a quick update, I've checked with official sources about the ISO-3166-ness of Guernsey :-

The present situation is that an application for Alpha-2 and Alpha-3 ISO 3166-1 code elements has been lodged with the ISO 3166/MA on behalf of the three "Crown Dependencies" of GG JE and IM. The main thrust of the application is to show the autonomy and geo-political sovereignty of the Islands, such that they meet the criteria for inclusion in 3166-1.

Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
[ Parent ]
Trollish - disband all TLDs and start again! (4.33 / 3) (#18)
by yojimbo-san on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 06:22:16 AM EST

Ooh, I fancy a rant about TLDs in general and my previous post has fuelled my fire!


The TLD allocations are broken, with many exceptions to the general "rule", and widespread misuse within each registry.

I propose the following -

  • Cessation of all current TLDs within n years of creation of new infrastructure, where n is not greater than 5.
  • Tighter integration with ISO 3166, to allow faster response to the creation of new countries/formal addition of additional naming source should ISO 3166 be too slow (New countries happen more often than you might think! Besides the USSR and Yugoslavia splits, what about Nunavut?)
  • Adoption of three-letter ISO 3166 codes for all countries / deletion of two-letter codes. The registry for a TLD can only operate with the positive grant of charter from the governing body of the country in question (i.e. reverse ICANN policy of "anybody can be a registry if they are technically competant")
  • Adoption of four-character or greater names for all "global" scope domains, with aliases for incompatible translations into other globally important languages
  • Greater use of geographical names - no access to a global domain without a valid presence in at least one geographical domain
  • Enforcement rules for the charter of a domain. i.e. non-profit domain only for registered non-profit organisations, commercial domain only for registered companies, etc. A "network" name must offer genuine network services.
  • Use of global TLDs as second-level names in geographical domains.


Thanks for listening!
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim

Nunavut (none / 0) (#21)
by CrimsonDeath on Tue Jan 09, 2001 at 02:22:40 PM EST

Um, just in case you didn't know, Nunavut isn't a country. It was simply the division of the Northwest Territories (in Canada) into two pieces. The largest part is now Nunavut, where the remaining part is still the Northwest Territories. The Northwest Territories have had pieces sliced off of it throughout history, so this isn't really that unique, except for the whole Inuit government thing...

And good luck getting any standards body to keep up with the rate of change in the world, there's always going to be some delay...

[ Parent ]

Nunavut ... (none / 0) (#23)
by yojimbo-san on Wed Jan 10, 2001 at 06:18:22 AM EST

My apologies - I must have mis-remembered by reading of this subject when I initially found it, many months ago. I had believed that it was to be a territory for a few years, and then eventually become a country in its own right, but I find no mention of this on nunavut.com :-(

Thanks for pointing this out ... the lack of country status should throughly remove this example from my discussion!
Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim
[ Parent ]
CX registrars gone? (none / 0) (#24)
by some geek on Sun Jun 24, 2001 at 10:41:45 PM EST

I'm unable to trace to www.dot.cx, www.nic.cx or www.niccx.com. I updated my nameserver info with one a week or two ago (I forget where exactly...), but the changes have never seemed to "take". WTF, SVP?

Battle over control of CX. | 24 comments (17 topical, 7 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!