🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <0QvRrAPBBh107h@boombox.apana.org.au> djk@boombox.apana.org.au (David Keegel) writes:

   Because (f'r instance) .GOV ought to either mean "Governments of some
   kind, all over the world" or "World governments".  Well, that's what
   seems logical to me, anyway.

Seems logical to me too.

   Now tell me, would the US Govt be happy to have the Australian Bureau
   of Statistics being called "abs.gov"?  Or does the US Govt claim to
   govern the world?

Not that I've heard recently; although we do reserve the right to kidnap
foriegn citizen (which is stupid, and a debate that belongs in another
newsgroup).  I don't believe there would be a problem with abs.gov; I recall
a discussion quite some time ago that used "kgb.gov" as it's example.  The
eventual outcome was that it wouldn't be a problem.

   Philosophicaly, I think the USA would look a lot less arrogant to the
   rest of The Net if its govt depts/agencies were in gov.us or us.gov.
   IMHO, the only govt with a right to be at the top level of .gov would
   be the UN (unless they want to allow all comers).

This is your opinion on how the net should be.  Not everyone agrees. Actually,
I would probably argue that the UN is a organization, and falls under .org,
but.....

Bob