Is it time to retire the .gb top level domain? | Hacker News Reader

Is it time to retire the .gb top level domain?

cddo.blog.gov.uk

93 pointsrobin_reala249 comments

There is a significant chance that Northern Ireland will hold the referendum on independence that they are entitled to (part of the Good Friday agreement) at some point in the not too distant future. And if they do, there is a significant chance they will vote for independence or joining the south.

If that happens, what happens to the UK? Does it just become "The United Kingdom of Great Britain", dropping "and Northern Ireland". Or do we stop using "The United Kingdom" as it sort of ceases to exist in its own right and revert to just "Great Britain"?

This is a debate the UK government will want to avoid at all costs. I'm amazed they are even considering talking about the ".gb" domain, it bring up difficult topics.

It's sort of schrodinger's domain, don't check on it and it both exists and doesn't exist at the same time!

it was just called "Kingdom of Great Britain" before 1801 when it only included England Scotland and Wales

.gb it is then...

should be .kgb

It would become the United Kingdom of England and Scotland. Though maybe they would acknowledge Wales for once.

Northern Ireland's departure would probably correlate with Scotland's, so more likely it'd be the United Kingdom of England and Wales. Catchy.

At that point Wales is probably ready to call it a day as well.

Part of the problem is as the empire is shrinking London and England becomes more dominating. Each piece leaving reinforces this so I think if Northern Ireland and Scotland leaves Wales will do so too. And perhaps even smaller pieces although that doesn’t look likely today.

Another factor is that Scotland stayed last time as border trade is the most important for Scotland. Not that UK is crashing it’s more likely they would leave.

"United Kingdom of Great Britain" is a lot catchier than "United Kingdom of England, Scotland, and — by the way — Wales" :)

Just Britain, these days ... if that.

"United Kingdom of not so great Britain"

Great Britain is the island, if it’s only Northern Ireland leaving all of the Great Britain island would still be in.

Fun fact: there is, in fact, a Little Britain—Brittany (Bretagne) in France, across the Channel from England.

There were similar debates prior to the Scottish independence referendum. I think the takeaway back then was that Scotland could leave the nation and actually stay part of the monarchy (similar to how Australia, Canada,... still view the King as their head of state), but the UK could keep its acronym and just rename itself to be the United Kingdom of [whatever remains of it].

One day it might become the United Kingdom of England and Wales.

No- UK always meant GB and (parts of) Ireland; Wales has been part of the Kingdom of England for far longer, nearly 500 years. Though the chances of Welsh secession would increase if NI and Scotland leave!

Nowadays however Wales is not normally thought of as part of England, so I suspect that if everyone but the two of them leave the Union they’ll have to come up with a name other than Kingdom of England.

Where it’s heading is United Kingdom of the City of London and England.

Not Britain?

They may as well. I was making a different implication, which is that the Square Mile calls the tune, the rest of London and England have no choice but to dance along, and that everyone else will bugger off soon enough.

It's not the City that is holding the reins - it's Tufton Street, which is in Westminster.

Fair enough... The United Kingdom of 55 Tufton Street, banks in British Empire-related tax havens, the City of London and England

There are Cornish separatists, once one domino falls, others will follow. England also has a north south cultural divide.

You'd still have Scotland and Wales there.

Scotland is planning another independence vote in a year or so. After Brexit there's a good chance it'll pass this time.

"A good chance" doing a lot of work in that sentence.

Not really. It almost passed last time, and one of the major reasons people voted against it was because it was unclear what that would mean for their status in the EU. That's no longer a concern thanks to brexit.

in the surveys in 2014 the EU was at around reason #7

underneith things people cared about (such as currency and pensions)

Currency and pensions have been heavily devalued as well.

Yes, really. But I doubt we'll agree on that. There was a short time when 'yes, go independent' was on top, but it seems to me to be less popular again [1]. Not by much, I'll grant, but when the tories lose the next election, and Labour stop the current government policy of "screw Scotland, just because", I expect normal service to be resumed.

If the Scots vote for it, of course, they should have that right. I'm not trying to say they shouldn't have their say, I'm saying their position isn't one likely to lead to separation in the near future. IMHO.

[1]: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d3/Wiki_Sco...

The kingdoms that are united are England and Scotland. It was originally:

the United Kingdom of Great Britain

then after Ireland was formally annexed:

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland

then after (southern) Ireland broke off:

the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

How about Wales?

Apparently, Wales was formally a part of the Kingdom of England in 1707 when the Kingdom of England and the Kingdom of Scotland combined to form the Kingdom of Great Britain. The subsequent union with the Kingdom of Ireland in 1801 created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom

Per Wikipedia, the "United" came with Ireland, not Scotland.

> The United Kingdom has evolved from a series of annexations, unions and separations of constituent countries over several hundred years. The Treaty of Union between the Kingdom of England (which included Wales, annexed in 1542) and the Kingdom of Scotland in 1707 formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. Its union in 1801 with the Kingdom of Ireland created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Most of Ireland seceded from the UK in 1922, leaving the present United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, which formally adopted that name in 1927.

So outside of the UK people often falsely use GB, UK and England synonymously (sorry Wales). Similar to how people call the Netherlands Holland, although that is just one part.

I think at some point people should just accept that the meaning has decayed completely and GB/UK/England means the lower half of the island on the right (up to Scotland). Maybe introduce "BI" for "British Ilses"? Unfortunately, .bi is already taken as a TLD.

Since Scotland shows a simmilar interest, it might become The United Kingdom of England and Wales.

I'm not sure why doesn't the UK just start selling the .gb domains. Seems like a nice suffix for domain hacks (64.gb anybody?) and in general.

There's a huge push in the UK not to use GB abbreviation unless necessary, because it excludes Northern Ireland.

Similarly, since last year international car plates bear UK sign, not GB as it had been for a hundred years before.

What's with GB at the Olympics though?

~Each island competes as one.~

Edit - oops incorrect.

They don't at the Olympics.

> Each island competes as one.

I don't think that's technically correct. Anyone in NI has Irish citizenship (who wants it), so any NI athlete can represent Ireland.

"Team GB" is the official team of the whole of the UK though, including Northern Ireland.

You are correct, the official name of the team is `Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team`

For the Olympics you are incorrect but it varies.

Rugby - one team for the island

Soccer - one federation for each polity on the island, but Derry City plays in the League of Ireland (Republic of Ireland). Two international teams.

Cricket - one team for the island

Etc etc. There is some tiresome hand-wringing every time an athlete has decide on their allegiance.

Basically, Ireland is a political Mandelbrot set.

Weirdly, NI Olympic athletes can choose to compete for either Ireland or the UK: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_GB#Calls_for_renaming

I think Northern Ireland is unique in that regard, where every person holds (or at least, is entitled to) dual citizenship from birth.

I guess HKers are kind of simultaneously Chinese and not Chinese until they get old enough to form an opinion.

And I'm not sure if they actually have 'dual citizenship from birth', but South Korea has an open door policy to North Korean.. immigrants/refugees.

I think one of the parents of the child has to be a UK or Ireland citizen. For example, German parents resident in and having a child in Northern Ireland, the child is only a UK citizen (and perhaps German? I don't know that part of it)

UK nationality law is exceptionally complex (probably the most complex in the world). Irish nationality law is less complex but inherited a lot of warts from the UK

In general if you’re born in NI and your parents are settled (that is they have permanent residency or are EU citizens with derived status) or are UK/IE citizens you are both British and Irish.

If one of your parents is NI born, it entitles you to have both UK (by descent) and Irish (by Good Friday) citizenship. Couple this with being born in the US, and my kids have 3 citizenships from birth.

And there are many other overlaps like this - such as RoI people can join the British Army.

The reasoning is that UK is still not actually correct (though more correct) because the Olympic committee also oversees places like the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands and so on which are not technically part of the UK. Then it seems they keep it because of tradition and because the country code is GBR.

That's contentious. Technically the full name is the "Great Britain and Northern Ireland Olympic Team". Broadly the answer is "branding" and there isn't a strong enough push to change it.

That is indeed the reasoning.

Of course, those of us that don't think Northern Ireland should continue to be colonised would like GB used everywhere.

The Ulster Plantations were 400 years ago, calling it a colony now is beyond a stretch and sounds childish.

British police and military were killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago. The north is still under British occupation. When that ends and the island is re-unified, we can start saying that colonisation is being addressed.

>When that ends and the island is re-unified

Why are you trying to force 2 million people to live in a country that most of them explicitly don't want to?

Reunification will happen when the majority of them do want to, and that’s probably not that far away given the chart at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ireland#Northern_Irelan...

And that's absolutely fine, I'll cheer them on in the reunification process when that time comes. But at the moment they don't, and it's silly to suggest that it's still a colony until then.

Two years, obviously.

https://memory-alpha.fandom.com/wiki/Irish_Unification_of_20...

I'm not trying to force anyone to do anything. I'd like the British state to stop forcing NI to be part of the UK. What the people of NI then choose to do is up to them.

> I'd like the British state to stop forcing NI to be part of the UK.

This isn't happening.

The Good Friday Agreement, which the UK is party to, explicitly gives Northern Ireland the right to leave the UK if the majority of people there want to.

> British police and military were killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago.

Technically most of the residents of NI were British citizens at the time this was happening.

Additionally, it wasn't just the British engaging in violence, there were at least three sides (nationalist/loyalist/government).

> The north is still under British occupation

I'm pretty sure that I could find a lot of people (almost certainly a majority) of NI residents who'd disagree with this statement.

> When that ends and the island is re-unified,

I hope (as someone from the Republic) that this happens, but we'll need a bunch of planning and time to make sure this doesn't turn out like Brexit (a close result leading to lots of problems over the following few years).

>> killing Irish people in the north around 30 years ago.

> residents of NI were British citizens at the time

That's how it works for every independence movement - a smaller entity asserts it's right to exist outside the boundary of a larger one. Fighting smaller entity is self-harm by the larger entity.

Look at the Chechen war in Russia, it was the same.

Ah no, the Irish situation is very very different.

For a start, the Ulster Protestants were the majority in NI until this year (100 years after partition).

And while I (as an Irish person) would love to see a united Ireland, I completely condemn the violence that was used to attempt it.

Again, I understand why it happened, but 3.5k deaths over 30 years was not an acceptable price to get to the negotiation table (essentially repeating a deal that was shot down by the Unionists in 1972).

> When that ends and the island is re-unified, we can start saying that colonisation is being addressed.

I objected to your use of the word 'colony' as it does not describe Northern Ireland. The social injustices you are referencing, and there have been many, do not make that word any more appropriate.

There is already a framework affirmed by the voters of both the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland that the a plebiscite on unification can be held. There is no occupation, and your language does nothing constructive.

It is also incorrect to say 're-unified' as there never was an all island Irish state.

NI is no more a colony than the US or Australia are today.

Personally I'm all about self-determination. If the people of NI want to return the land to Eire, then nobody should stand in their way. But that doesn't seem to be the case right now, even though support for reunification has been increasing in recent years.

The US and Australia don't have the British military as the ultimate enforcer of state power. They each have their own local armies, accepted as legitimate by Britain. Northern Ireland's army was never accepted as legitimate by the British state, they were even fought directly for decades.

The only reason for that is NI never voted/fought for secession from the UK - just relatively small groups without popular support in NI, but with the support of Ireland.

Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence. That that particular part of the country may have chosen to remain does not, under democratic rules, allow for it to be separated from the main country, much like Scotland and Wales could not have argue to remain in the EU because their respective populations were overwhelmingly in favour of remain.

When Ireland voted for independence, it was officially part of the UK. The UK as a whole would have voted against independence for Ireland. Does that mean under democratic rules Ireland was not allowed for it to be separated from the main country? We'd be better off asking why unionist don't want to join rather than telling them they have no choice.

I don't think anyone is telling them that: in fact their concerns are absurdly well catered for, though you wouldn't know it listening to the constant complaints.

We can split hairs about what is and is not democratic until the end of time, but the debate takes place in a historical vacuum: the creation of Northern Ireland was a response to a very specific set of circumstances, and I don't think yak-shaving about democratic niceties casts any light.

It is moot anyway, because there is no prospect of changing Northern Ireland's status without democratic sanction. Which vote of course takes place at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

It is not quite at the pleasure of His Majesty's Secretary of State for Northern Ireland. It is defined in law that if there are grounds to believe it would pass they would be required to hold a border poll. This could be decided in court, as in if say opinion polling was at 70% and nationalist parts were winning 70% of the votes, and the Secretary of State refused to hold the poll. They could be brought to court and a judge could rule the secretary has no grounds to refuse.

> Actually, they did, back when Ireland as a whole voted for independence.

Can you point to a vote by the Irish people in favour of independence?

I'm pretty sure you can't given that no such vote has ever taken place.

There's this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1918_Irish_general_election

The IRA derived their 'legitimacy' from it.

The one where the votes for unionists in Ulster outweighed nationalists 2:1?

Ulster didn't exist as a polity at the time.

That's an election, not a referendum.

And to be quite frank, you are probably thinking of the Provisional IRA when you put legitimacy in quotes, where as this was the original IRA, who basically have nothing in common with the Provos (as they were called when I were a lad) except the name.

That's an interesting debate to have, definitely.

The levels of support for the small groups that fought primarily against small groups on the other side were never really gauged. However the political successors to the only one of those groups that really counted is currently the largest party in Northern Ireland.

The Brits left split polities in quite a few places as they decolonized. Almost as if it was policy.

Northern Ireland is not a colony according to the common and widely understood meaning of the word colony (or in the opinion of the UN). If you make up your own definition based on "local armies" (whatever relevance or meaning that has, not sure)... then yes you can personally call anything anything you like... but it has no meaning to the rest of us and doesn't really make any sense.

NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.

I'm not even Irish and certainly have no skin in this game but what the UK did to Ireland over the centuries is disgraceful, and it clearly is struggling to come to terms with it.

As a recent tourist, NI seemed far less developed than the Republic of Ireland to me, as if everyone there had moved to England for jobs and now that region only survives thanks to life support from London.

Much of the infrastructure there reminded me more of post-communist Eastern European countries than western Europe, but then so do many parts of England (no offense).

I wonder if NI wouldn't be better off part of the Republic and the EU, now with Brexit and everything?

As someone who grew up and lives in NI, I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here?

It used to be the case that the roads would get noticeably worse as you crossed the border into the republic, now the situation is reversed.

>I'm suspicious that the awful state of the place is because the UK knows NI will rejoin Ireland in the nearish future, so why would they invest in infrastructure here?

NI receives a disproportionately large amount of money from the UK gov compared to other UK nations.

And that money still isn't enough, because NI is still suffering the effects of the troubles and a governance situation which is not fit for purpose. Everything here is in a state of disrepair, the NHS isn't functioning, the far-right Christian-fundamentalist party which is the second biggest party refuses to do anything for reasons that exist only in their own heads, etc. etc.

The place needs to be actively developed, not repeatedly patched up and sent on its way to hobble along.

I agree with you, I'm just pointing out that the lack of investment in infrastructure isn't a NI-specific issue; rather it's part of central gov policy for the whole of the UK. And has been for decades. Every part of the UK is crumbling through lack of investment.

NI is a little better-off than much of England in that regard, outside of Tory towns and villages. My home town never recovered after Thatcher.

Probably not, in the sense that it's a backwater anyway - but at least it's currently a backwater enjoying significant subsidies from the UK government, money they likely wouldn't get from Dublin.

Unification will happen when the advantage of receiving such money will be clearly be offset by the disadvantage of having a broken political system (NI regional government is boycotted by unionists, while the national government is boycotted by republicans). As money reduces further and further while annoyances get bigger and bigger (because of an entrenched "England-first" government pursuing policies like Brexit), that threshold gets closer and closer.

>enjoying significant subsidies from the UK government

Those subsidies don't seem to be enough to save it when the infrastructure is crumbling and everyone is moving abroad for jobs. Also, many countries don't need subsidies, they need opportunities. Subsidies are like paying a crackehead to buy more drugs instead of getting him a home, warm meal, a shower and schooling for job applications.

>money they likely wouldn't get from Dublin

They would get it from the EU then, and probably a lot more, as the UK gov is now struggling financially to stay solvent. The EU can very generous if you can play the game right. Just look at Poland 20 years ago and Poland today, the difference EU funds and the EU open market made, is night and day. It has also benefiter the Republic of Ireland. I doubt they would have been in the same state today without EU membership. For all its faults, the EU has been a force for good many times. Another English speaking region joining the EU could be a mutual benefit.

> NI was explicitly created as a hack to an all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century. It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.

The UK government didn't have a lot of choice, the Ulster Protestants would almost certainly have fought a civil war if the full island was granted domininion status.

The boundary commission was problematic, but the real issue post partition was the removal of PR by the NI government. I think that if the ballot box hadn't essentially been stacked against Catholics we might not have seen the Troubles.

> The boundary commission was problematic

India, Pakistan, I am seeing a pattern.

Even if you get independace from england, you won't leave in one piece.

The same 'know what's best for em' attitude that was used by the US nationals funding IRA terrorism.

> all-Ireland independence referendum at the start of 20th century

So which one was that then? Was this before the Representation of the people act or were women and working class men still banned?

> It was a landslide victory for a one-Ireland state and the UK created this never-seen-before entity as a response.

In the 1918 election in Ulster 66% voted for unionist parties.

It's worth noting that "Great Britain" is very specifically the name of a geographical land mass -- an island off the coast of Europe that currently includes England, Wales, and Scotland.

In political terms it doesn't include NI ... or the Isle of Man, the Isle of Wight, and the Channel Islands.

(Also, in event of Scottish independence, using "GB" for the nationality would cause confusion because post-independence there'd be two separate nations on the GB land mass. See also [minor] confusion over "Ireland".)

Sorry to be picky, but the Isle of Man and Channels Islands aren't part of the UK either.

Politically, IoW is part of England and so GB, albeit geographically a separate island.

Jesus christ, just when I thought I understood what all the convoluted UK/GB/etc names meant, now I discover I need to add "Crown Dependencies" to the list? That turn out to be neither part of the UK nor British Overseas Territories?

I swear they're just messing with us. Who comes up with these things...

The always relevant CGP Grey: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNu8XDBSn10

Skip to 5:00 for a beautiful diagram outlining the mess.

I assumed this link would have been one of the top comments! All the other links in this thread combined don't shed light on the topic nearly as well as CGP Grey's video.

Probably explains the lack of a constitution too. No one dares to try and document it!

> In political terms it doesn't include NI ...

It often does - for example someone from NI can join the GB Olympics team.

Indeed, but someone from NI can also join the Irish Olympic team. I guess the use of GB rather than UK is a way of addressing that sensitive question by not including NI as default in one team.

Also Football and Rugby. In general the sporting associations have a conditionally Unified Ireland policy, where it's really flexible which countries an athlete can compete for.

Northern Ireland has its own Football team, though I guess anyone who was born in NI has the right to be an RoI citizen they could choose to play for RoI instead. There is only a single Irish Rugby team though.

Indeed - there are a couple of good diagrams that attempt to illustrate what each term encompasses, e.g.: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/55/British_...

I find it annoying that any time you prepare for the test or read official textbook, such diagrams are never provided. Its alsways dome super spesific textual information

Why are England and Wales in once circular but Scotland isn’t?

England and Wales share a legal system that is distinct from the one in Scotland and NI, which is the only thing I could think would explain that. Wales didn’t have its own parliament until 1998 and was entirely governed by London.

Wasn't Wales annexed by force into England while Scotland joined with England as an act of desperation following an amazingly incompetent attempt at setting up a colony?

Well there were two joinings. In the first one the Scottish King (James VI) took over the English throne after Elizabeth I died.

King James then began to try to create a unified state, merging first the churches. Of course there was then that little Cromwell bustup, but after that James VII of Scotland was on the throne and causing religious grief, his daughter and her Dutch husband then took over.

Wasn't that more like trying to merge the churches - or did I imagine the unique misery of Church of Scotland services at school? :-)

Wales is (or was[0]) a principality, historically ruled over by the monarch of England and thus a constituent part of the Kingdom of England[1].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_in_Wales_Acts_1535_and_15...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_England

The inclusion of Ireland in the British Isles is now contentious. We're not blowing each other up over it but it is, at least unofficially, not the position of either side any more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Isles_naming_dispute

I never thought a geographical term would be that contentious. To me, it sounds similar to objecting to the continent(s) known as "the Americas" simply because the USA is often known world-wide as just "America".

Plenty of people in other parts of the Americas do object to “America” being used as shorthand for the USA.

As someone from Northern Ireland who is often frustrated by British companies who don't ship to or provide services to this side of the sea, I think having this clearly indicated by a .gb TLD would be great.

This is like "free shipping to the US" and then you learn that they mean contiguous US and Alaska and Hawaii are not included.

Alaska is continental but not continuous. Just imagine living in Porto Rico or any of the other random us protectorates that have no legal voting authority.

*contiguous not continuous (not the same thing, could just mean "sharing a common border")

*Puerto Rico not Porto Rico

British companies often charge extra to ship to the "Highlands and Islands", meaning northern Scotland (one of the most sparsely populated areas in Europe.)

I am surprised by this; Does the Royal Mail charge more? Like, significantly so? USPS charges more for shipping cross-country, certainly, but I consider their rates[1] pretty fair for the distance involved.

[1] https://pe.usps.com/text/dmm300/Notice123.htm#_c052 - For clarity, Zone 7 is cross-country for the most part, Zone 8 is mostly "Non-contiguous" (Alaska and Hawaii), and zone 9 is "Foreign but US Sovereignty" (Military bases, Embassies, Minor Outlying Islands). The maximum zone by distance in the UK would be Zone 4 - (Almost) All points within the British Isles are < 600 miles from each other.

UPS definitely charges different rates for different areas (and even the USPS does somewhat once you get to parcels) but most companies hide this from the buyer to make things simple (even so far as dropping to "free shipping").

Smaller companies often don't want to take a hit on the non-contiguous - but depending on what you're buying the places that DO charge shipping may actually be the cheapest overall.

The fun really comes when you have places in the USA that the post office doesn't even deliver to (in very VERY rural areas, every address is actually a PO Box; you have to drive into town to get the mail and that can be many, many miles). Often UPS and FedEx will think they can deliver, and then determine they can't. Fun times.

This is essentially down to the mainland forgetting that Northern Ireland existed until Brexit forced the NI border issue to prominence, isn't it?

The UK is to a great extent a set of special cases that have accreted from the feudal era. No wonder we invented Mornington Crescent.

All of the compatibility issues and awkwardnesses that derive from this get glossed over as much as possible, but are starting to force their way to the surface as the power and competence vaccuum in the center loses its grip.

What should be the correct demonym? ...Ukeyish?

Confusingly, it's British.

That would upset an awful lot of people living in Northern Ireland, though. I'd be up for adopting "United Kingdomer".

The unionists there already describe themselves as British. The republicans don't but they wouldn't want to be UKish either, obviously.

Currency should be changed too then from GBP to UKP.

Sterling (aka the GBP) is used outside the UK.

The United Kingdom also allows some regions to issue bank notes that are considered currency but not legal tender (i.e. then can be refused for payment of a debt in favour of currency issued by the Bank of England).

See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banknotes_of_the_pound_sterl...

Always wondered why British car plates say GB instead of UK. Or indeed, why we say "British", and not "UK-ians". What do Northern Irish plates say?

On the other hand, it would be confusing to have two top level domains for one country.

UK’s not one country though. E.g. there’s https://www.gov.uk/, but also https://www.gov.scot/ and https://gov.wales/.

those aren't classed by icann as cctlds

(in the same way .vegas and .miami aren't)

The UK is one country, it just happens to be made up of multiple countries.

Just as the United States is a (sovereign) state, that is made up of multiple states.

The way I prefer to think of it, is the UK is a state comprising of several countries, and the US is a country comprising of several states.

I can't promise it's any more accurate, but it amuses me.

What does that mean?

Honestly, nothing. I just enjoy the symmetry.

But really - we like to think there's a sensible definition of what a country is. There isn't. What makes Scotland a country and not Montana?

I'm in Ireland, the examples get even more convoluted. For some sports we field a team as a UN-recognised nation-state. For some sports we field a team as an island. If you're born on the island to parents who are citizens of the island, you can claim an Irish passport - whether or not you were born in the country of Ireland. Sometimes it's a geopolitical entity, sometimes it's a geographical entity, sometimes it's a political entity. Sometimes it's not even green.

Is the UK a nation? Is the US a nation? Is the Navajo Nation a nation? Is the UK a country? Is England a country? Is Malboro Country a country?

My passport says "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". But I'm not convinced Great Britain is a United Kingdom (England and Scotland legally are, Wales may be a principality depending on who and when you ask), and I'm not sure if Northern Ireland was ever a Kingdom (Ulster perhaps, otherwise it's not a kingdom, but the remains of a king's claims).

Nationhood is almost as convoluted as the modern take on gender. You can self-identify as anything you like if you have an army to back you up.

It is always a hot topic, but England’s dominance can be noted in its absence.

Wouldn’t it be fair to say that the UK is synonymous with England in this case?

Exhibit A, that I have at hand. Rainfall gauges for only England using the UK domain:

https://check-for-flooding.service.gov.uk/rainfall-station/2...

If you want to get really weird, look into City of London and some of the Channel Islands. UK very much retains living heritage of the medieval.

I think the independent status of the City of London is grossly exaggerated and not really comparable with the Channel Islands.

It's not particularly independent, but it is the last of the unreformed medieval municipal corporations. In earlier times every borough/city corporation was chartered ad hoc and often had completely undemocratic rules for membership (e.g. selection by the outgoing members, maintaining a self-selected oligarchy, or election by an extremely restricted franchise). There was a process from the Municipal Corporations Act 1835[0] onwards where the old order was reformed into a more modern (more uniform and more democratic) county/district/borough/city councils system. We eventually ended up with the local authorities we have today.

Except for the City of London. Here, a combination of the Victorian power of the Corporation, coupled with the tiny resident population of the City (and a consequent desire by central governments to leave elections in the effective hands of the companies who employ people in the City rather than those who live there) have left a body allowed to take its own direction. Along with the Council of the Isles of Scilly (weird because Scilly is far too small to justify its own principal authority, but too far from Cornwall to be conveniently governed by it) it is one of only two really sui generis principal local authorities in England.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Municipal_Corporations_Act_183...

That's a great explanation, but it's also worth adding that the City of London was the only city mentioned[0] in Magna Carta, which stated:

"the City of London shall have all its ancient liberties by land as well as by water"

These liberties being "ancient" even in 1215 AD means they date back to "time immemorial"[1] (that is, before 1189 AD) and thus their exact nature is not known. As such, replacing the legal basis for the City would likely have contravened or at least complicated the interpretation of that foundational document.

[0] https://www.cityoflondon.gov.uk/things-to-do/history-and-her...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_immemorial#English_and_Am...

Yes - the traditional liberties of the City are long-standing and fought for. I'm not sure that being mentioned by name in Magna Carta was reason enough to leave it unreformed. The Cinque Ports have been reduced to essentially ceremonial status despite their mention (and the large majority of Magna Carta has simply been repealed over the years[0] - it's not a constitutional document in the sense that it's ever been entrenched).

[0]: https://www.legislation.gov.uk/aep/Edw1cc1929/25/9

> UK very much retains living heritage of the medieval.

To give an example, it was only in 2008 when the island of Sark abolished the feudal system (the last place in the western world to do so).

https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/dec/10/channel-islands

Scotland only removed the last bits of feudalism in 2000

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2000/5/notes/division/1/2...

"Vassals will become owners and superiors will disappear."

It used to be the case that there is only a single UK government. The local governments (Scotland, Wales, NI) are formed no more than ~20 years ago, and are in charge of local affairs such as healthcare and education. There is never an England local government, but effectively the UK government only have to deal with England with regards to local affairs.

(A bit over simplified, of course)

The Scottish Parliament is sometimes described as having been re-established in '99

https://www.parliament.scot/about/history-of-the-scottish-pa...

No, that's not true or fair. The gov.uk contains stuff for all countries not just England. Although it may contain stuff for England that does not have a place elsewhere.

The fact England doesn't have a devolved government is insanity to me, but people were really pissed at Blair when it came time to vote on it... so here we are.

> UK’s not one country though.

England, Scotland, Wales, and NI are called “countries” for historical and traditional reasons. They are not “countries” by any internationally applicable definition (if they were, then the states of the US, the provinces of Canada, etc. would all count as “countries” too by any such definition I can imagine).

There's a few that already have that, China has .cn and .中国 for instance.

Spain has .cat for Catalonia.

I think the organization that administers .cat would take issue with the idea that it is owned by "Spain" :)

Note that .cat is for the Catalan language, which is spoken in other places besides Catalonia, inside and outside of Spain. There is also .gal and .eus for the Galician and Basque (Euskara) languages as well.

Fun fact, besides .ru (Russia), .su (Soviet Union) is also still active.

It's not the only country with that, for instance the USA has both .us and .gov for its government domains.

Does this mean it is time to retire the .su TLD as well?

Just for vanities sake it'd be good but the last thing the world wants is news.gb

Domain should be named .kgb anyway

Thus news.kgb

I look forward to the official renaming to the "United Kingdom of Giga Byte and Northern Ireland" and then we can all fight over if it should have been Gibi Byte.

Someone in Gibraltar should have created .gib IMO

I mean, lets get a couple more general elections done and see if we keep NI and Scotland...

“The United Kingdom of England and Wales” still theoretically works.

I think they'd continue to refer to it as such but to me it feels a little odd. The "United Kingdom" was originally a union of the kingdoms of Scotland and England, the latter having already conquered and absorbed Wales. Losing one former-kingdom of that union and maintaining you're the "United Kingdom" feels a bit dishonest, a little bit "Democratic People's Republic ..." :)

"The Kingdom of England and Wales" makes more sense but "KEW" and "EW" sound odd as acronyms, and will just lead to most of the world referring to the place as "England" (as many in the USA currently do tbh). That is, if they decide to keep the monarchy...

I think it would become simply "Britain", seeing as "Britannia" originally referred to the Roman colonies of England and Wales.

"Great Britain" is the whole island (including Scotland).

"United Kingdom" would require continued Union with either Scotland or Northern Ireland.

"Britain" or "Kingdom of Britain" is a good idea, I hadn't considered that

TRIVIA CORNER:

In Irish Gaelic the island of Great Britain is Breatain Mhór [Big Britain] and Breatain Bheag [Little Britain] is the name for Wales. Obviously coming from the historical fact [much trumpeted by the Welsh] that they were the original Brits, driven into the mountainous west by the Saxon invaders. England in Irish is Sasana [obviously referring to Saxons] thus making an Englishman a Sasanach

NOTE: These terms are similar in Scottish Gallic too. Hence the widely known Scots usage of Sasanach as a derogatory term for an English person which, in reality, means calling them a 'Saxon'.

If we're digging up weird etymological trivia, I will contribute the fact that the old Celtic word Īweriū (from which we get the name Éire) was interpreted by the ancient Greeks as Iouerníā, leading to Tacitus calling the island Hibernia (influenced by the Latin word hībernus, thinking that it meant "land of winter").

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hibernia

I really appreciate these little tangents, got a good couple of “TIL”s from this thread

The predecessor to the UK before Ireland was the Kingdom of Great Britain, so would be correct to go back to afterwards

Of course to save money (and face) it probably wouldn't

United Kingdom came from the GB+Ireland, not England & Scotland

England + Scotland were the Kingdom of Great Britain

Ah good point, but the scenario in question involved both Ireland and Scotland leaving so "Great Britain" doesn't fit either.

If both leave, then the predecessor to the Kingdom of Great Britain was the Kingdom of England

Wales was already part of England, as principality / having been conquered

Though "United Kingdom of England" could argue that they kept the Irish crown :)

I feel like "Kingdom of England" would be off the table - you probably wouldn't want to antagonise the Welsh immediately after they just watched NI and Scotland split off :)

That's kind of like 'The United States of <two cities in the same state>'.

(Aside: TIL I don't think there's a US state for which I can name two cities. Edit: ah, no - Austin & Houston TX.)

No doubt you’re aware of San Francisco and Los Angeles, both in the state of California?

Aware of them, yes. Able to tell you they're 'both in the state of California' (perhaps before now if I remember), no.

I'm not even American, and I can give you "Detroit" and "Flint" both in Michigan, off the top of my head.

Well done? Obviously (?) I'm not saying nobody can, just thought I realised for a minute that I couldn't, then remembered the pair edited in. Fwiw I'm also not American, and have never heard of Flint. Also couldn't have told you Detroit was in Michigan anyway.

Sorry, I assumed you were American. In that case, I don't think it's all that rare not being able to name two cities in a state — IME, a lot of capital cities are well known, but not necessarily second cities, etc. I think the capitals are often presented alongside their state as pairs, so phrases like "Detroit, Michigan" just stick in the mind. I also probably know Detroit, Michigan from either Eminem or Motown. Flint, Michigan is definitely more obscure — I know that one from Michael Moore. I do have a bit of a love for Geography, place names, and US states in particular.

I'm not sure it does? IIRC, the Kingdom of Scotland merged with the Kingdom of England as (theoretical) equal partners, but Wales was just straight up conquered, and to the extent it's got any connection with royalty (the Senedd Cymru is democratic so I don't count it for this title), I think it's just leading it's name to royal titles, and hasn't even still officially been a principality since 1542?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Wales

I don't think this historical matter is going to be relevant. The leftover bits will want to claim continuity with the preceding state, and they will want to use the UK name. But even if there's no consideration giving to branding, thanks to the Welsh Senedd there's now a distinct category of Welsh law, different from English law. So while the union of England and Wales might have been brought about by the extinguishment of the Welsh state, such as it may be, the union is being continued through the regeneration of some of the aspects of statehood.

the kingdom of southern great britain?

Does it? As a welsh person it hurts me to say that Wales was never a kingdom in the United Kingdom as its was under English rule for a long time before that came about. You could I guess still use the name, but its weird.

I would love to see England get a devolved government, with all governments getting equal power and the UK government overseeing defense, etc. Sort of like a Federal government.

If we do federalism we would need to break England down quite a bit.

Yours, a Londoner.

(We have less political power than Scotland, which is half our population. Wales is even smaller)

We have a wonderful opportunity to reestablish some of the old kingdoms in England as states in a federal United Kingdom. Duchies of Mercia, Wessex, Northumbria, Lancaster, London, Yorkshire and so on (as well as Scotland and Wales) with both elected parliaments and local constitutional nobles would be a brilliant way of making things more equal, driving local development, revitalising the monarchy and maintaining tradition.

One option in the future is the that United Kingdom refers to the monarchy not the government. If Scotland became Independent, they could retain the monarchy. So you could argue the kingdoms are united, but different governments "serve" the monarch in different countries. This would require England and Wales to come up with a new name for their new country unless Wales also asked for independence.

But that's already the case with many former colonies in the Commonwealth, but they're not considered part of the UK.

E.g. the monarchy "rules" over Canada, but we're not in the UK.

True,but they were colonies that were under the British Empire, rather than being made part of the UK, that slowly gained dominion status granted self-governance that eventually came full governance. The United Kingdom was formed around 1707, between England and Scotland. Ireland was joined in 1801. Ireland left the United Kingdom in 1921 coming a dominion until becoming a republic and cutting all ties to the monarchy.

My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country, not as an entity. Which would be either largely symbolic, or something closer to the EU in design

> My scenario doesn't abolish the United Kingdom, it abolishes it as a country

But surely a kingdom has to have a defined territory over which the monarch is sovereign?

Of course there is precedent for having a government in exile (which claims a territory it has no control over), and the Sovereign Military Order of Malta (which doesn't claim any territory at all), but I think if you want the "UK" to refer to an institution, then it should stand for "the United Kingship".

The monarch would be sovereign, but he/she/they would execute their powers through different elected assemblies in different parts of the Kingdom. The two assemblies would have no influence over each other. Not sure the monarch has really executed its powers over government since ousting Lord Melbourne in the 1830s. So it really is just about tradition and pageantry.

It's The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, so presumably if Ireland were to ever unify we'd just be...the Kingdom of Great Britain?

.k?

or better .kgb ;)

I'd prefer (for two reasons) the Republic of Great Britain — now that would be a cool TLD!

That country could have an interestingly named neighbor: if Ireland and Scotland band together, they could be the United Republic of Ireland and Northern Great Britain.

Honestly, if it were up to me, my solution to this would be to not solve it all. There's only a finite amount of time and energy available in any organization and you have to make sure you spend it on the problems that are worth solving. That have a significant payoff of some sort. This doesn't seem to be one of those.

But when United Kingdom will split, what will Britain use?

.sb (Small Britain) ?

that's brittany (a region of france). "Great" britain is to distinguish it from there.

It's more the other way around. The Romans called the isles Britannia Major and Britannia Minor (now Great Britain and Ireland). Some time after Rome fell, Britons started to settle in another region they called Armorica, so it changed name to Brittany. "Small Britain" could be either Ireland or Brittany at this point.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brittany#Etymology

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain_(place_name)

.ie, .scot, .cymru, .wales, .irish

.ie? Already used by Ireland.

Correct and the breakup of the UK will likely lead to a United Ireland. The real question is what will England use for a TLD? They've never considered their place in the world that isn't in reference to the UK or GB because to them the two are interchangeable.

> Correct and the breakup of the UK will likely lead to a United Ireland

Unless things go really pear-shaped in the UK, this is unlikely within the next twenty years.

> Unless things go really pear-shaped in the UK

That doesn't seem terribly unlikely in within the next twenty years.

Things would need to be really, really bad for the Unionist population of NI before they'd vote to join Ireland. I'm honestly not sure that anything bar the total collapse of the other island would do it, tbh ;)

Things weren't particularly bad, and the UK managed to vote itself out of the EU and into recession. All you need is a single vote and a particularly apathetic populace to change the political landscape forever.

I strongly encourage you to visit Northern Ireland and talk to people (even just see the peace walls) as this is far more like the 18th century than it is like the 21st (in the sense that religion/ethnicity/history is the predominant driving force behind voting patterns).

Don't make assumptions; I'm well aware. I was deployed to an RAF station there for a number of months, my fathers side of the family are all passionate Catholic Irish republicans, and my mother all served in NI during the Troubles in the British Army. I know the history intimately through them, and years of studying the conflict within officer branch of the RAF.

I do truly believe that Brexit has fundamentally and permanently shifted the balance in the region in favor of the republicans. Public support for independence is the strongest it's been in decades, particularly within the younger demographics. There's no sign of that sentiment slowing. On the other side of the fence, Parliament's desire to govern NI has lessened significantly, something that would have been considered sacrilege just 10 years ago.

I can't picture a situation where it won't eventually go to a vote, just like the Scottish referendum. I also can't imagine it being a particularly peaceful transition whatever the result of the vote.

> Don't make assumptions; I'm well aware. I was deployed to an RAF station there for a number of months, my fathers side of the family are all passionate Catholic Irish republicans, and my mother all served in NI during the Troubles in the British Army. I know the history intimately through them, and years of studying the conflict within officer branch of the RAF.

Wow, in that case you probably have a more in-depth awareness than me. It's just that lots of people with no context have been pushing a United Ireland post Brexit, and it's really frustrating to try to explain that it's not quite that easy. My apologies for lumping you in with those people.

> I do truly believe that Brexit has fundamentally and permanently shifted the balance in the region in favor of the republicans. Public support for independence is the strongest it's been in decades, particularly within the younger demographics. There's no sign of that sentiment slowing. On the other side of the fence, Parliament's desire to govern NI has lessened significantly, something that would have been considered sacrilege just 10 years ago.

I think that you're probably right, but I would prefer this to happen really slowly with a well thought out plan. I think sometime by the late 2030's/early 40s would probably make sense. I'm just very conscious of how Brexit was managed, and I dearly want to avoid a situation like that.

More generally, the population of the Republic will most likely need to make a whole bunch of compromises to get unity (change the anthem/flag/maybe rejoin the Commonwealth etc) and it's gonna take a while to get people in the South to shift on that.

> I can't picture a situation where it won't eventually go to a vote, just like the Scottish referendum. I also can't imagine it being a particularly peaceful transition whatever the result of the vote.

That's why I want to wait a while, as right now definitely seems like the wrong time (sadly). If Brexit hadn't happened then we'd have had a much easier time of this, but such is life.

Things have been going very pear-shaped in the UK for at least 6 years now.

> Correct and the breakup of the UK will likely lead to a United Ireland.

Will it? I know some Northern Irish who would not on board with that.

I think you're reading a "without bloodshed" into the sentence that's definitely not in there.

Some, of course — this is why it hasn't already happened. However, in the last NI census:

32% identified as British only, 29% identified as Irish only and 20% as Northern Irish only.

In 2011, the figures were 40% British only, 25% Irish only and 21% Northern Irish only.

So... England will not be part of the FUK (former UK)?

Counterpoint: England’s national teams in the country’s most popular spectator sports (football, cricket, rugby) are all “England”.

.ei - eastern Ireland

lb - Little Britan (cough cough, computer says no!)

Sounds useful for game boy / retro gaming enthusiasts

should retire those bullshit for-profit TLDs like .google

Nah, they don't hurt anyone.

They hurt me.

I disagree - they hurt all of the brands that were tricked or pressured into buying them to prevent someone else from going after them. If you look at e.g. .ford or .audi, they only have a small handful of sites, all of which could have been subdomains of .ford.com or .audi.com without any real loss.

Why even ask the question? It just opens the door to a no answer, which doesn't make any sense since the domain is already not used for anything.

The UK got the .gb domain because it's the correct country code. The .uk domain came about because it was in use on the Janet academic network, shortly before all the networks were smooshed together to make the internet. It was probably expected that everyone would eventually move to .gb, but nothing ever gets fixed in computing...

> There is a risk that if handed back another country might try to claim it for themselves

I really don't get this. What exactly is the risk? If they don't need it why do they need to make sure no one else gets it?

Old domains which are still referenced somewhere will change ownership and can now be used for phishing or other nefarious activities.

Also it looks official, I'm sure plenty of people would fall for gov.gb if the site looked official enough.

If the domain has ever been used for anything, there are serious security reasons to never reuse it.

For example, imagine your recovery email address for something important is bob@something.gb. If 'gb' is ever reassigned to someone else, they can now get access to anything ever registered at a gb address.

This is the reason things like gmail accounts are never recycled to another user. Early services like hotmail would recycle accounts, but it has since become an 'obviously bad idea'.

The post does say that only one domain has ever been registered and it's been defunct for decades. The risk is probably zero.

Risk 1: Impersonation. ie, someone sets up hmrc.gov.gb and tells people "pay your taxes here" and scams a bunch of people.

Risk 2: Economic loss. People selling .gb domains might take away from .uk revenue.

Risk 3: Political fallout. Perhaps Chagos Islanders somehow get control .gb and demand that the UK give up .io in exchange. There's plenty of geopolitics that could get brought up.

Risk 4: opportunity cost. Perhaps later some major use for .gb arises, but by then it's too late.

These are all pretty small risks, but this is the kind of thing they may have in mind.

I think it should be handed over to the Game Boy emulation community.

That is, provided that Baron Silas Greenback doesn't attempt to steal it in his bid to rule the world.

A very rare break of Betteridge's Law of Headlines:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...

gb is a legacy of an earlier system when a naming system in the UK was big-endian: gb.ac.cambridge etc (example; I no longer remember any of them for real).

But it ought to be appropriate for entities in GB but not in the UK, such as Isle of Man, Channel Islands, post-independent Scotland (whose members could also use .EU again).

So even if they retire it, I could never get a .GB domain? If that is the case I would much rather they keep it as it is.

There are city level domains now, this question is about a decade too late

They should reserve .ew now in case both North Ireland and Scotland exit.

In a need of .kgb top level domain

Isn't the .IO domain a lot more controversial with the UK expelling the population of the islands? https://www.thewebmaster.com/archived/io-tld-top-level-domai...

Controversy hardly ever seems to influence the British government.

Even the linked document is more of "Huh, what's this in the draw? Anyone using it?"

FYI that page lacks recent developments: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/nov/03/uk-agrees-to-n...

It looks like a politically isolated and weakened UK government has had to relent, and will finally hand over the territory to Mauritius. It's possibly the only positive outcome of the Brexit saga.

Positive for Mauritius, maybe. It's not clear that the Mauritian government would be any more likely to remove the US base there, and will instead be happy to just receive the rent that the US is currently paying the UK for it.

One might also note that the Chagossians who lived in the British Indian Ocean Territory never actually owned any land there, nor were they self-sufficient in terms of food.[0] Also, the Chagossians were given[1] severance pay for their work there, and compensation for starting a new life in the Seychelles or Mauritius, back in the 1970s. Then, in the 1980s, the UK government paid out millions more in reparations[2], and this year the government offered them British citizenship too.[3]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagossians#Eviction

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Chagos...

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forced_expulsion_of_the_Chagos...

[3] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/23/chagos-islands...

It's still a step in the right direction, from both moral and practical perspectives, for what is a clear historical wrong. Among other things, it will lay responsibility for the status quo where it really resides, i.e. the US.

I think it's premature to say it would be a step in the right direction, unless Mauritius publicly promises that they would immediately evict the US base (turning down the rent payments and weakening the presence of a strategic ally in the region). From what I've read: "Although Mauritius wishes to gain sovereignty over the Chagos Archipelago, its government, and that of its diplomatic supporter India, favor an American military presence there."[0]

Also, the status of the British Indian Ocean Territory is not a clear historical wrong, or at least it's only wrong due to being a by-product of the original policy of colonialism. Legally speaking, "Council of Ministers [of Mauritius] confirmed agreement to the detachment of Chagos Archipelago"[1], so the objections to this policy are based on the fact that Mauritius was not fully independent from the UK at the time (and therefore under duress), and that a country can't legally be split in two unless both pieces agree (and no one asked the Chagossians specifically if they were happy with the arrangement).

However, given the non-viability of the territory as a self-supporting entity, and assuming that Mauritius would not have wanted to support the unemployed population there after Britain closed the plantations, it's likely that much the same outcome would have happened even if all of our 21st century principles had been followed back in the 1960s. The only difference would have been that the Chagossians wouldn't have received their compensation, reparations, and British citizenship.

[0] https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/overcoming-the-diego-garci...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chagos_Archipelago_sovereignty...

> it's only wrong due to being a by-product of the original policy of colonialism

Only or not only, it's wrong.

> assuming that Mauritius would not have wanted to support the unemployed population

As they say, "when you assume you make etc etc..."

It's a silly assumption.

How is being self-sufficient in terms of food relevant? I think many countries are not.

Unlike a country, though, the island would not have been able to support itself economically once the plantation work had ended.

It's a bit like a country supporting a whaling station on an island[0] and then later evacuating the island rather than continuing to pour resources in to maintain the presence of the now-unemployed workers.

For additional context, I should point out that the UK government did worse things to an island much closer to home[1] (albeit an island without any human residents).

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grytviken

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gruinard_Island

Retiring a TLD is cruel to anyone using the domain, especially with the prevalence of TLS. Just as retiring "land" that someone paid for and is living on would be cruel.

The tendency for technologies to evaporate and be migrated to replacement for $reasons is too frequent.

Domain TLDs should remain constant. If .gb no longer represents a geopolitical entity then transition it to a new manager with a contract that stipulates maintenance of established domains. Don't set precedent for pulling TLDs out from under people.

> It is staggeringly unlikely that you would ever have encountered a .gb domain in the wild. The only domain which is registered, though inactive, is hmg.gb - standing for His Majesty's Government. The domain was originally created in the mid 1980s, and abandoned at some point in the 1990s. There are no active domains which use .gb and today, the government only uses .gov.uk for its domains.

Third paragraph.

Did you read the article? It says right at the beginning that only one domain was ever registered, and it's been inacite for over thirty years.

Whilst I agree with the sentiment that TLDs shouldn't be pulled out from under people, replies without reading the article are just noise.

This comment sums up HN perfectly.

I'd say the presumptive replies do a more accurate job

Reply on news.ycombinator.com