What happens when a ccTLD is retired? Exploring the potential risks of .io

Post by vinay427 » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 12:48 AM UTC

xxpor wrote: post #34

scythe wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More importantly, the whole reason that the UK owns the islands, and the reason it evicted the Chagossians, was because the United States wanted them to . The UK will not lose its place on the UNSC for doing the bidding of the US. The UK likewise will not give up its territory because they would much rather piss off the ICJ than the US. The islands are a UK colony only in name; they are a US colony in reality. I feel…

Given how little care is given to the Marshallese in the US, where we literally nuked their islands out of existence, I can't imagine anyone's going to care about BIOT any time soon.

Post by hanoz » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 1:12 AM UTC

smkellat wrote: post #47

A nice, spammy scare piece. The bit about the UK somehow losing its permanent seat on the UN Security Council over Diego Garcia was a wee bit off. The UN’s charter would have to be changed to change the permanent members of the Security Council. Those same permanent members can veto any such proposed change. They can’t be forced out without rupturing things to the point of just creating a separate UN 2.0 excluding th…

Post by echelon » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 1:27 AM UTC

searchableguy wrote: post #35

voldacar wrote: post #11

Does the current TLD system even make sense? There is a .amazon, a .google, a .cancerresearch, a .sex, a .rich (which costs thousands of dollars btw). Plenty of them such as .io and .tv are all completely untethered from their original meanings/purposes. At this point, a website is just a string with a '.' in it somewhere. Instead of having 1500+ discretely decided upon TLDs why not just let people just create their…

.rich seems like a great idea to earn shit ton of money.

Post by AmericanChopper » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 2:04 AM UTC

hanoz wrote: post #53

smkellat wrote: post #47

A nice, spammy scare piece. The bit about the UK somehow losing its permanent seat on the UN Security Council over Diego Garcia was a wee bit off. The UN’s charter would have to be changed to change the permanent members of the Security Council. Those same permanent members can veto any such proposed change. They can’t be forced out without rupturing things to the point of just creating a separate UN 2.0 excluding th…

Bafflingly absurd to suggest a permanent seat at the council could be forfeit over such a matter. These seats are occupied by the victors of the last world war, and will continue to be so until the results of the next one.

Post by gowld » Sat, Apr 18, 2020, 2:20 AM UTC

AmericanChopper wrote: post #57

hanoz wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bafflingly absurd to suggest a permanent seat at the council could be forfeit over such a matter. These seats are occupied by the victors of the last world war, and will continue to be so until the results of the next one.

I wouldn’t be so sure about that. The League of Nations failed, and then disbanded. The UN fails constantly, but has decided to simply become more irrelevant overtime rather than disbanding. I can’t see why a fresh world war would convince them to change tack.