🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <BsFwuH.EGH@comp.vuw.ac.nz>, mark@comp.vuw.ac.nz (Mark Davies)
 writes:
> 
> In article <1992Aug4.143927.9842@waikato.ac.nz>, john@waikato.ac.nz (John Houlker) writes:
> |> There hangs a tale; we used usp.ac.nz as a temporary convenience
> |> while we were asking for usp.int (since the USP is a multinational
> |> organisation) 
> 
> But surely usp.edu would have been the appropriate one, it is an educational
> institution.  And dont claim that .edu implies US.  There are lots of
> universities in Canada and other places that will argue against that one.

Indeed edu can be considered international/multinational (as
I stated in my final paragraph!): 

	Also note that there are some quite different views about the
	purpose of the top level domains; one approach is that INT is some
	sort of aberration and EDU, COM, GOV, MIL, NET, and ORG are
	international/multinational domains,

This is by no means a universal view or at least impression,
however, and it was not desired by the USP in particular (there are
Canadian universities in CA as well, and I suspect those in EDU are
there more as a matter of history than as multinational bodies or
in support of a global scope of EDU).  For many EDU gives the
impression of a US educational institutions, even if this is not
intended.  The multinational argument for these top levels would
suggest locating the IAC in something like GOV (c.f. MCMURDO.GOV);
I haven't suggested this yet but strictly it is valid - but I for
one would feel this misses something (or adds something we'd rather
not have).  Given the possible failure of INT and some concerns
about AQ (including those from the NSF), GOV and ORG are possibly
real candidates.

To the degree that INT can or might successfully make it obvious
that multinational entities are being described, it may yet perform
a useful function (e.g. we don't have NATO.MIL, not doubt again an
issue of impressions and sensitivities - btw the top level NATO is
essentially defunct).

> Getting back to the "International Antartic Centre", it seems to me that this
> is an international centre and it is an antartic centre so one of iac.aq or
> iac.int is more appropriate than iac.nz.

Thanks; more votes for them (or something like iacc.aq or iacc.int
to allow iaccpa.x for a possible site in Chile and the like).

John