[ih] internet-history Digest, Vol 39, Issue 7

[Richard Bennett]

That's a very important insight.

On 1/20/2010 4:54 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> perhaps the point has been made but the motivation for these TLDs was 
> to parse the responsibility for registration into very distinct 
> categories so that the work could be delegated without too much 
> dispute over jurisdiction but still covered the range of then-foreseen 
> participants in the use of the Internet system.
>
>
> On Jan 20, 2010, at 7:19 PM, Dave CROCKER wrote:
>
>> Some years ago, Jake Feinler said that there was a persistent, 
>> non-converging debate in the community about the TLD choices.
>>
>> She asserted that there was finally some small face-to-face 
>> discussion where she ran out of patience and declared that the 
>> choices would be com, net and org.
>>
>> I have a somewhat more vague recollection of her acknowledging that 
>> the question, then, was whetehr Jon would concur, and that he did.
>>
>> d/
>>
>> On 1/20/2010 1:18 PM, Bob Braden wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> internet-history-request at postel.org wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Does anyone know why .com; .edu and .gov were chosen? I know it seems
>>>>> simple, but why .com instead of something like .biz?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I recall seeing those TLD names on Jon's white board at the time. I 
>>> feel
>>> quite certain that they came out of Jon's head, but were ratified by
>>> discussions with Paul.
>>>
>>> Bob Braden
>>>
>>>
>>
>> -- 
>>
>>  Dave Crocker
>>  Brandenburg InternetWorking
>>  bbiw.net
>

-- 
Richard Bennett
Research Fellow
Information Technology and Innovation Foundation
Washington, DC