Sunday 21 December 2014
CONTACT | RSS
ABOUT | CATEGORIES | PAGINATED INDEX
Based in London; Formerly of New York, Buenos Aires, Fife, and the Western Cape. Saoránach d'Éirinn.
About
A writer, blogger, and historian, born in New York, educated in Argentina, Scotland, and South Africa, now based in London. read more
News
Blogs
Reviews & Periodicals
Church
Arts & Design
Scotland
Africa
Cape of Good Hope
France
Netherlands
Mitteleuropa
Scandinavia
Muscovy
India
Argentina
The Levant
Knickerbockers
Academica

dot Scot

Since the decision by ICANN, the mysterious council of elders whose nomenclatory dominion spans, it seems, the entirety of the “world wide web”, to designate .cat as the “sponsored Top-Level Domain” of the Catalonian linguistic and cultural community, much speculation has arisen in various sub-statal lands throughout the world about future TLDs. In our favoured realm of Scotland, a campaign has arisen for .scot to be designated the TLD for Scotland. While I wholeheartedly support the campaign for a Scottish TLD, I have already expressed my reservations about the increasing size (not number) of TLDs. The traditional country-code TLDs are all two-letter combinations, and any new TLDs representing geographic entities ought to stick to this restraint.

But then what would Scotland’s top-level domain be? .sl is taken by Sierra Leone, while .sc belongs to the Seychelles, and .st to São Tomé. We might hark back to the Gaelic with .al for Alba, except that it’s already occupied by Albania. Ah! Caledonia! How about .cd? Nope, that belongs to the Congo. Blast. It might be necessary to go to three letters then, which brings us either to .sco or .sct. Neither look all that attractive, though .sco has the advantage of being pronounceable. Actually, .sco is quite imaginable, when spoken: parliament.gov.sco, fifeherald.sco, glenfiddich.sco. It just doesn’t look right. .scot looks better, but the rhyming nature of “dot scot” is irritating to say aloud.

I do wish they’d make .gb available again. I’d much rather be a “gee-bee” than a “yoo-kay”. Great Britain is a natural entity, after all, whereas the United Kingdom is a government construct. Perhaps if the Union is re-negotiated, we might move from .uk to .gb, just as .yu was changed to .cs when Yugoslavia was renamed Serbia & Montenegro. (The two split not long afterwards, and went for .rs and .me).

With four letters, at least .scot is not the longest proposed top-level domain. Some ninny thinks there should be a .quebec — how cumbersome! .qu would be much better, and one can just imagine the Québécois pronouncing it. Other British proposals include .eng for England and .cym for Wales. “Norn Iron” loses out, as .ni belongs to Nicaragua, but .ul or .uls are conceivable for Ulster. Perhaps the Vatican could dole out .sre — Sancta Romana Ecclesia — for ecclesiastical domains.

This post was published on Thursday, August 5th, 2010 2:00 pm. It has been categorised under Errant Thoughts Frettecat Scotland and been tagged under , .
Comments
  1. Daniel McGlone
    5 August 2010
    10:54 pm

    Excellent idea!

  2. Adrian
    6 August 2010
    5:37 am

    While the two letter country identifier was a good idea, it was always going to be quite restrictive.

    I’ve often thought that .ie doesn’t do Ireland justice. A three letter .irl would be much more appropriate.

    Although I like the sound of .scot, I don’t think that we should go above three letters for country or territorial identifiers. I’m for .sco!

  3. Jordan
    20 August 2010
    10:38 am

    Don’t tell the Quebecois that they’re sub-statal! This American in Montreal knows better than to open his big fat anglophone mouth and get involved with the never-ending nationalism question.

    Some in the Quebec government center have suggested dropping the .ca from .qc.ca (Ontario is .on.ca etc.). Seems reasonable to me. Quebec has functioned as a semi-autonomous region for quite some time now.

Leave a comment

Name (required)

Email (required)

Website

Comment

Home | About | Contact | Categories | Paginated Index | Twitter | Facebook | RSS/Atom Feed
andrewcusack.com | © Andrew Cusack 2004-present (Unless otherwise stated)