[LINK] Democrats launch anti-filtering site

[Stilgherrian]

On 20/05/2009, at 5:18 PM, Darrell Burkey wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-05-20 at 16:44, Stilgherrian wrote:
>> Also, are where the site it hosted or what the domain name is  
>> "global"
>> versus "country-specific", REALLY the most important issues to be
>> discussing here?
>
> When the topic is net filtering I think it's entirely relevant. It  
> goes
> to their credibility, or lack thereof, if they can't get even the very
> basics of using the net right. Why listen to their views on net
> filtering if they can't even get the simple things right?

This is perhaps my question. Is it "wrong" to use a .com instead of,  
say, .au? Does anyone actually care about this, apart from folks old  
enough (including me) to remember when this WAS a big deal?

I don't know that sticking to 20-year-old guidelines for what domains  
were used for what really matters any more. What DOES matter is people  
having an easy-to-remember or easy-to-type address.


> And personally, it annoys the crap out of me that so many Australian
> organisations don't identify themselves as Australian with their  
> domain
> name. What are they hiding?

Why are you assuming they're "hiding" something?

Personally, I use a .com domain rather than a .com.au because whether  
I'm "in Australia" or not isn't especially relevant. I may move one  
day. I write about global issues (sometimes).

All that said, I do advise businesses with (solely) an Australian  
presence to use .com.au because some customers may find that it adds  
credibility. But that's just an assertion I'm making. Does anyone have  
any research, I wonder?

Recent research, I mean.

[shrugs]

Stil


-- 
Stilgherrian http://stilgherrian.com/
Internet, IT and Media Consulting, Sydney, Australia
mobile +61 407 623 600
fax +61 2 9516 5630
Twitter: stilgherrian
Skype: stilgherrian
ABN 25 231 641 421