Slashdot Mirror
NSI Wants .banc and .shop
dakfu writes: "NSI is suggesting two new TLDs, .banc and .shop." I want .rob and .dot please. Is that too much to ask for? I think .god would be fun too, but I think there really ought to be a .sex just to help me (ummm) avoid it. Yeah. Avoid it.
O.K, so i get the idea behind .shop, but shouldn't the second one be .bank? Oh, and .sex (Or .xxx) is a good idea too btw ;)
Syllable : It's an Operating System
How about:
th.rob
nobodylikes.rob
whois.rob
And of course, I want to register www.dot.dot or maybe just set up a sub-domain http://dot.dot.dot
kwsNI
There are thousands of hospitals on the Internet, and they are randomly distributed throughout the .edu .com .org and (more recently) .md domains.
.MED for the medical/industrial complex!
We need
--Charlie
Domains were never meant as the be-all-end-all of directory services. They were meant to make IP address management easier.
.com, .net, and .org, what makes anyone think they would do better with .shop?
The current situation is just fine. NSI blew it with
i'd like to register the 1st level domain i want!
chaos!
Why do they want to mispell bank?
how useful all these extra tld's would be if people would use them properly in the first place. Feh. More tlds == More $ for the registrars, as every company known to man fights to register their trademarks under all tlds available.
Feh I say, Feh.
--
Does narcissism count as a hobby? --Shawn Latimer
Why banc instead of bank?
Us foreigners have just about gotten used to all the internet names being in [American] English only, that this seems strange?
Micro$oft Word suggests 'ban' as a replacement for 'banc' :-)
Hi!
H-T-T-P-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot
--
A buddhist walks up to a hot dog stand and says ``Make me one with everything.''
What service do they really provide? are there any compelling technical reasons to keep them? And where can I get .foo and .bar?
in fact, now that I think of it, let's just let registrars register their own new TLDs from NSI, first-come, first-served...
Eric
Can your IM do this?
Is it just me or does this seem like a plan for Network Solutions and other registrars to make more money of cross-registering domains like .org, .com, and .net.
.com, and fearing that someone else might want to register something similar, will register the associated .org and .net addresses. Now they will also register .shop.
.com TLD serve the purpose of .shop already? NSI better stop its money grabbing practices. Too many TLD's are definitely a Bad Thing (tm) for people who register domains.
The problem is bad enough as it is, with companies registering a
Does this make any sense whatsoever? Doesn't the
There needs to be a rule about companies owning the same name in multiple heirarchies. There doesn't need to be a foo.net, foo.org, foo.tc, foo.sex, foo.us, and a foo.banc. A company with the name of Foo Inc. should be foo.com only.
Unless there is some kind of rule like this, then there will not really be that many additional names available to people, but the registrars will make more money.
If tits were wings it'd be flying around.
Why stop there? Why not allow companies to register part of their company names as tld's?
.cola as a trademark...
That way, coca.cola and pepsi.cola can sue each other for the use of
And then, the MPAA and RIAA can start feeding off of themselves, much like the French Revolution did...
"Before the wreck, I never knew how to type with my face."
Actually, it's for blocking purposes that I'd like to see such a TLD. Yes it would be easier to block. So much so, that *we* as adults (or parents) can make the conscious decision ourselves, and not have to depend on nazi filter companies. (It would/should much simplify putting the control in the hands of parents/individuals.)
.sex so there's a one line block in my junkbuster config instead of having to add a single domain each time I (or my family) have the misfortune of running into porn.
Individuals certainly have a right to block. Companies do as well (it's their bandwidth, their time). ISPs would (should) not.
The only sticky situation would be public libraries. Should they block or not? I think they should if the computer is accessible to or viewable by children. Of course, there should be uncensored terminals available to adults.
Back on topic... I want a
don't forget ralph nader's suggestion, .sucks.
World Trade Organisation protestors and conspiracy theorists everywhere are likely to love this...
I can understand the country domains: presumably the government of the country is in some whay responsible.
I could understand domains for large NGOs like the United Nations.
But this suggestion seems to be a recipe for disaster. Next thing everybody will want to register their own top-level domains. Can I have .allan?
The UK have already tried someting similar with .plc.uk and .ltd.uk for the two main company types here. This arrangement is a complete failure: everybody registers .com (for example http://www.tesco.com/) and if that is unavailable .co.uk.
The suggestion here will also fail, for the same reasons.
Hi!
Every corp in existance will just register their name/trademark/whatever else they're known by under every TLD anyway. Just like they do now with .com, .net, and .org. We're just going to have an even bigger mess.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
magine how hard it would be tell people how to get to ./ if it was http://slashdot.dot.
I think what he has in mind is:
http://slash.dot/
Now that would be cool!
Jay (=
Oh what great fun these TLDs will be. Imagine taking your free Kmart Internet access and trying to visit anyone-else.shop.
Heck maybe we can have another big fight between etoy.shop and etoys.shop not to mention the poor sucker who rushes to get the genric toy.shop.
We're all doomed. Feh.
--
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
If Micros*ft registers microsoft.shop, do you think IE will start automatically completing words in the URL field to .shop domains as well, or not? Personally, I doubt it pretty seriously. What if there is the same name in the .shop and the .com domain? Which one will display? What about Netscape? What does anyone else think?
p.s.Very sorry to any one who read this looking for something witty and/or funny
Well thats it I want .geek and .no ( like in no you cant come in here)
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes
1)Banks and financial institutions already have web sites. If there's a significant bank or FI that doesnt yet have a dot.com they don't deserve a .banc address.
.shop equivalent is available- they will just register more names in addition to the ones they have.
2) to infer this scheme will somehow lessen the stress on the supply of domain names now out there is absurd. NOONE is going to give up any of the existing registered names because a
3) If anything, this will help the domain-squatting industry as it will rush to register EVERY common sense dictionary word/phrase and lock them up behind the internets answer to ticket scalpers, unless NSI plans to do the unthinkable and limit the number of domains a single entity can register (not bloody likely).
4) Conclusion - this is a scam, a swindle, to make bucks. I spit on it.
Part of the problem with the current system is that companies get names under as many TLD's as possible. What if we created "regional TLD's", with the stipulation that the company be within an appropriate region. This is based along the idea for the local newsgroups in the Champaign-Urbana area of Illinois. All the local newsgroups are of the form cmi.*, with cmi being the local airport code. Under this system, a local business, say Bob's Bike Store (fictional) could have the domain bobsbikes.cmi, whereas someone else could have bobsbikes.lax, bobsbikes.ord, etc...
Granted, this would take a bit more work and oversight than the current system uses, but perhaps part of the workload could be taken on by local ISP's.
Brett
Disclaimer: This has not been thought out in great detail by me, since I'm not an expert on such matters, but I think it might work.
.porn, Just face up to the fact that it makes up a substantial portion of the 'Net and give it its own domain. Hell, I'd be surprised if porn wasn't one of the first three things put on the DARPAnet right after work and games. Plus it'd make things easier on those dumbass censors who think that $29.95 over-the-counter, shrinkwrapped solution from CompUSA can make up for years of shoddy parenting. But, I digress...
The more Top Level Domains the better. While its true that yahoo and microsoft will grab microsoft.sex (if some site for impotence fettishes dosen't) and yahoo.med a proliferation of TLDs will mean that most businesses will bwe less likely to do this. So Don't stop at two new ones. And while where at it here's a grand idea, a person or business can register a TLD 5-15 characters in length long. Microsoft would jump at this. Although I don't know if Windows 2000 is stable enough to be the . in .microsoft. When IPv6 becomes the new standard where gonna need the TLDs anyway. Imagine the commercials: Sun, we put the dot in .playboy, .ecommerce .sunmicrosystems ....
--- Justin Dearing http://www.justaprogrammer.net/ We're just programmers.
You are a seriously disturbed person who should seek help. Boy talk about the pot and the freaking kettle
Claiming that your operating system is the best in the world because more people use it is like saying McDonalds makes
Rob has joked about these TLDs helping him avoid porn, etc. The implication being that, actually, they would make it easier to find. I agree that this is the case.
What I don't understand is this: when such a TLD scheme would make porn easier to find for people who want to find it, and easier to avoid for people who want to avoid it, why not have it?
People get upset about censorship, and show how external efforts to "protect" people from certain things will always fail. I agree that they fail miserably. They fail because they are effected by people other than those who want to be "protected," like some software vendor generating an endless list of keywords, for example, or blocking access to entire sites (like www.bomis.com) just because some of the pages contain links to porn. Instead of external compulsion, how about some internal regulation by the porn industry itself? Why not move to a top level domain like
I agree with derogatory comments about external agencies "protecting people from themselves," but the folks who get lost in the argument are those who actually, actively want to protect themselves (instead of being protected). What if I really don't want to see porn online? What if I'm offended by it? A TLD and some self-regulation by the industry would make it easier for me to avoid. On the other hand, it would make it that much easier to find for those who want to, as well.
I guess I'm not sure what's wrong with the plan unless we think it's a "good thing" for people (kids or otherwise) who think they're going to NASA's or the Whitehouse's site to be greeted by frolicking, naked, variously engaged women and faceless men. I, for one, absoultely support such a TLD scheme because it accomplishes three things:
(1) makes it easy for those who want to avoid to avoid,
(2) makes it easy to find for those who want to find, and
(3) puts an end to the endless accidental porn sightings we all experience unwittingly.
Bring on the
--------
meta4
dw2-dont-spam-me-@opencontent.org
http://davidwiley.com/
How about installing a real directory service and doing away with NSI and the other registrars alltogether?
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
How about some really cool TLD's that we can all use? Let's lobby for some that apply to us, such as:
.geek
.nerd
.unix
.bsd
.linux (Well, it has to go on the list, this is Slashdot ;) )
:)
Of course, if we can have 5 letter TLD's too now:
Mailto: kristian@vanders.geek
Syllable : It's an Operating System
NSI "urged ICANN to designate two new proof of concept" top-level domains right away to avoid 'months or even years spent in further analysis, debate about abstract criteria, and lengthy, complex and contentious procedures and negotiations.'"
.com name crush as being one of the pressing social woes of our time. It sounds like NSI has something up its sleeve...
.com will want a .shop/.banc address. That they're offering it indicates that they're getting some nice benefts from said .com owners (otherwise, they could just open it up for the squatters to gobble). Nor do I see any great benefit to the rest of us... does anyone really believe that (say) NationsBank(TM) will give up nationsbank.com just because then can get nationsbank.banc?
I don't know... I don't really see the
NSI "that a 'sunrise period' be enacted to allow 'certain trademark holders' the right to register their marks in the new domains."
Ah-hah.
Looks like the people who think this is just a way to make more money from cross-registering have something here. That NSI thinks the sunrise period will be used indicates that they believe everyone who currently has a
(well, maybe if they think they can sue whoever buys it next)
- Michael Cohn
The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded.
-----
Go ahead, blame me... I voted for Nader!
I remember when I saw a URL on a flier at school. It was in the form http://domain/ --- no "www" at the front. One girl said, "Of course that's not a web page, stupid. There's no 'www'!" The other replied, "No, they don't make you do that any more."
sigh.
TO BUY A NEW CAR WOULD MAKE YOU SEXUALLY ATTRACTIVE.
- .grits
- .troll
- .wtf
- .kharma
And some I'd like to see instead of=)
--
You can be an atheist and still not want to succumb to some weird cross-over sheep disease -- AC
If they'd done this, together with some reasonable rules for how many domains one company could register, before this mess got bad, it would have been good. Now it'll just make everything even worse.
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest
As a general rule, the parent corporation of a bank is a 'Banc'. So while you bank at Bank One, for example, the parent company is Banc One Corporation.
ikaros, oh, the things you learn geeking for a financial institution ... :)
You're only as young as the last time you changed your mind -- Timothy Leary
Rogers Cadenhead (Web: http://www.cadenhead.org/workbench)
If NSI wants more money, they should make more! Change it so that any TLD is possible. Immediately, we have N-squared namespace. That's N-squared more money!
Still not enough! Enforce any two words for a TLD. foobar.dope.name. This is N cube! But why stop there? foobar.dopey.sounding.name. N to the fourth! foobar.very.very.long.name. N to the fifth!
In fact, don't have any restrictions at all. Potentially N to aleph-nought! What are you waiting for NSI! Make money now!
By the same token, it looks like the top-level structure that's been in place since the days of ARPA and the RFC process will remain, since no one seems to be able to take leadership and create a workable consensus. Therefore, all the discussion taking place will almost certainly be for nought, and the current system will prevail. Hopefully, that won't be such a bad thing after all.
.fart?
(hoping somebody catches the SNL reference...)
H-T-T-P-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot :)
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
NOT ENOUGH!!!
Actually there is yet another TLD in the works for that, .inc, which is 'possed to be _only_ for those who are Incorporated with that name.
Forget the .rob TLD, just register "rob.banc" and "rob.shop" when they become available. Much better play on words.
H-T-T-P-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-dot
And you thought http://slashdot.org was impossible to pronounce..
(say it out loud...fast...)
--
Why stop? Why not have as many root-level domains as possible? It is technically feasible, is it not? I care not a whit if it costs people money. Everything costs money.
As a matter of fact, although RealNames sucks like Manchester United, why not just get rid of any sort of significance to the root levels and allow sentence-like-structures. Web sites could be full words separated like dots like some email addresses.
So "rob.eats.pooh" would not be owned, necessarily, by the same people who own "winne.the.pooh."
[I'm sure I'm about to hear from a) Manchester United fans: I love you blokes. Please lighten up and tell the boys to stop mucking about, b), some technical wizard who will have 16 good reasons my plan is not feasible and will be happy to trade email for a week about it]
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
... and do something that will eliminate the artifical scarcity of second level domains? Doing something to address this is tough, but so is splitting up an area code; it's done becasue in the end the health of the system requires it.
.com tld been taken up, if not by a real business, by a squatter. Adding one or two isn't going to help. It may be good for NSI, but it's not good for the net. Right now, people just go out and register .net/.com/.org in parallel anyhow. Why make the situation worse by adding a limited number of new TLDs?
.com, .org and .net and make people register like this: IBM.COM --> ibm.ny.us. Bound to be unpopular though, but hey, we live with phone numbers, which are much more unfriendly. The system as it is now is not scaled to the kind of phone number volume problem it has.
Every dictionary word in the
I see four alternatives for reducing scarcity of second level domain words.
1) Register domain names regionally.
Simply get rid of
2) Create a second layer of several hundred, if not several thousand domains under the TLDs and make people register at the third tier.
IBM.COM --> IBM.COMPUTER.COM
AMAZON.COM --> AMAZON.BOOKS.COM
People who didn't bother to re-register would get bumped under a standard catch all
BOOKS.COM --> BOOKS.INTERNET.COM
3) Add a very large number of new TLDs, say the top thousand most common dictionary words in the top ten countries by internet usage.
Then Amazon.com --> {amazon.com, amazon.books, amazon.music, amazon.auctions}. IBM.COM --> {ibm.hardware, ibm.software, ibm.government}.
4) Keep the limited number of TLDs, but make registering multiple ones increasingly expensive. E.G. charge a tax of (N-1)*10^(N-1) dollars for N domains. If you had two domains, you'd pay ten bucks.
So 1 domain: 0 bucks; 2 domains: 10 bucks. 3 domains: 200 bucks; 4 domains: 3000 bucks; 5 domains: 40,000 bucks; 6 domains: 500,000 bucks, 7 domains: 6 million bucks.
The fact is, people register way more second level domains than they really need. An exponential tax would keep it affordable to maintain a reasonable number of domains, but possible to register more if there is business justification. Practically anybody registering more than four domains is squatting or underutilizing some of them.
Every freaking business consultant is recommending preemptive domain regitration based on the fact you might want to use it some day. Even my company does this -- because it's rational. It's the tragedy of the commons, because the benefit my company gets outweighs our share of the cost to the community at large. If you think about it, why not screw your competitors by taking up all the valuable domain name space in your industry?
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Those are the ones we need.
--
--
Marc A. Lepage
Software Developer
Both of these two prospective top-level domains are just a couple more examples of how we are inevitably spiraling down the drain of total commercialization of the internet. Am I the only citizen of this community who hearkens for the days when the world wide web wasn't so completely and utterly engulfed by capitalist advertisements which are being shoved down our symbolic throats? I certainly hope not for the internet's sake. Sure, the existing TLDs are heavily drained of available domain names and ICANN should take into consideration the current situation. But the fact of the matter remains. Once .shop and .banc and .yetanotherTLD, etc. are created, there's no turning back. As a result, the internet will lose any shred it had left of its original purpose and goal (which was to facilitate a free and open environment or even further back, an interconnected network of military-based systems which would be used as an auxillary method for communication (HEH!)). I can't possibly be the only one who holds these particular sentiments.
This is all so stupid. Adding more TLDs is like building more roads. It just doesn't alleviate the problem.
.nic while they're at it. You know, since we've all seen this *overwhelming* demand for bank domain names.
.ego. (Not my idea -- I'm sorry that I can't remember who to credit it to.) I honestly believe that a .ego TLD for personal websites is a fantastic idea. Hell, I don't want Waldo.Net. I'm not a network. I want Waldo.Ego.
.ego TLD, though, I just don't think that new TLDs are a good idea. .web is *definitely* the stupidest that I've ever heard of. It would have been a good idea in '92 or '93, but not now. To most people, Internet == WWW.
.banc is totally masturbatory on the part of NSI. They should add
If they want to add something useful, I like
I don't know how you'd go about making sure that businesses didn't get 'em, and I'd like to hope that it would be permissable to get ibm.ego, coke.ego, etc.
Short of a
To all of those that have said that this is a move on NSIs part, I offer a hearty 'Hell Yeah!'
-Waldo
BTW, does anyone know why it is banc not bank? Someone mentioned internationalisation but it seems pretty late to try that now (.net, .com and .org all being English derivatives).
Maybe one of the myriad monkeys-on-typewriters that seem to handle domain transfers at NSI got promoted to "tld strategist" (or somesuch) and is "leveraging" his spelling skills.
...in fact msot serious hacking is done by UNIX, and UNIX based systems such as Linux or C++...
--
--
My sometimes helpful blog
"Bring on the .sex TLD!!!"
So, anyone want to venture a guess as to the contests of "http://slashdot.sex"? I'm imagining photoshop-spawned pics of a certain young Miss Portman, covered in nothing but her modesty and hot grits.
Now, given the apparent number of Natalie fans around here, it might just be a viable business model (Since nowadays we have so many business models which consist of nothing more than a catchy domain name). Or then again, there might actually only be one single AC out there.
Instead of a few lame names like .shop and .banc the best solution would be to find a way to let people add TLDs that they really want, while keeping some kind of limit on the number of new TLDs. One way to limit it would be to charge a high price. I think there is a way to do this while still keeping it possible for groups of individuals without a centralized budget to create new TLDs.
My suggestion: let anyone pre-register a name under an arbitrary TLD and give their credit card number. It will be verified but not charged. If more than, say, 150 names under the same new TLD are pre-registered the TLD is created, any preregistered names are created under the new TLD and the credit cards are billed.
If you want a new TLD (.linux for example) you can organize a campaign to get 150 people to preregister names under the proposed TLD. Of course, someone with enough money can register all 150 names by themselves - but they will not own the new TLD, anyone can register names under it afterwards.
I believe that technically the root domain should be able to handle a large number of TLDs.
Comments?
----
Stop worrying about the risks of nuclear power and start worrying about the risks of not using nuclear power.
"joe.service" is a second level domain.
"service" is a top level domain.
Lots of people get this confused for some reason.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
Given that many new major movies seem to have a website with a domain name of it's own 1,2, 3, etc. This one makes a lot of sense to me.
Start Running Better Polls
Granted, most companies will cross register, but not every single person who owns a dotcom will.
.com .shop .buy .whatever... who gives a fuck about kmart anyway?
Even if 75% do that still opens up a ton of new domain names for individuals, and the more TLDs they add the more choices there will be.
I'm more concerned with individuals beign able to get cool, expressive domain names than companeis fighting over names. Let kmark have
I want pleasedont.shop
http://overwhelmed.org
This is a great way for NSI to make more money from people protecting their trademarks, but the only way to *increse* the truly available number of TLDs is to make the TLDs too numerous for anyone to desire or afford owning all permutations.
.food, .res, whatever) would be theirs, and they've little need to protect an oddball one like mcdonalds.xyz.
If we had 100,000 TLDs, and each cost $50, then only a huge company like McDonald's or Coke (who have a good case for exlusive Trademark protection across all industries) would even consider buying them all. But even they wouldn't need to, because the obvious one for McDonalds (.com,
The only way to stop abuse and squatting is to dilute the value of any single TLD so that it's up to the company to make their domain stand out, rather than counting on (or worrying about) people guessing or stumbling across a domain.
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
Ahem!
How about: Whitehouse.com?
Yeardlysmith.com?
Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!
"Going to war without France is like going deer hunting without your accordion." - Jed Babbin
Then I coud register pizza.pizza
.NSIprofits
.auctionprofits
.potentiallawsuit
.cybersitting
.registrationrace
Should homeopathic or naturapathic web sites be .meds? What about AIDS dissidents? (people who loudly insist that HIV and AIDS are unrelated and AIDS is not sexually transmitted) I certainly don't have all the answers (or even all the questions), but I would want a .med domain to be a source of dependable information - on the other hand, I'd like dependable information on naturapathy too, and wouldn't want to see everything outside of the narrow veiw of "real medicine" excluded.
Just some thoughts.
-Kahuna Burger
...will work for Chick tracts...
If we're in the mood to totally revamp the TLD scheme, then the first priority should be to fix up the .gov and .mil TLDs.
.gov TLD seems to apply to only US governmental addresses. Why should www.senate.gov go to the US Senate. Why not the Canadian Senate, the Slovenian Senate (if they indeed have one) or any other nation that has a Senate?
.gov and .mil TLDs should be restructured so that no one uses straight .gov and .mil, but all nations use .uk.gov (for the UK), .ca.mil (for Canada), or .us.gov (as it should be). The fact that senate.gov goes to the US Senate page is a total bias against all other governments, and is nothing more than a grasp by the US Governement to try and have direct control over a portion of the Internet - somthing that shouldn't be able to happen.
The
This is totally against the whole 'international' movement of the Internet. People like Al I-created-the-word-Internet Gore are always talking about how the Internet is such an international thing - not in this case!
The
Dan.
"Claim everything, concede nothing, and when convicted - alledge fraud"
If we stop accepting new registrations in the current TLD's now, all the existing registrations will have expired in two years. They could then be recycled and assigned in a more intelligent manner.
"The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'
Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
However, it should still require registrations to be of the form DOMAIN.TLD, i.e., both parts domain and TLD extension are both needed to constitute a single registration application.
The TLDs themselves can be registered to no one, just like no one "owns" org or com or uk.
Of course the root servers will need some custom software to deal with this. I say, use the 1st letter of the TLD to decide what nameserver ([A-Z0-9].ROOT-SERVERS.NET) gets the request. This will accomplish load balancing and should be straightforward to implement.
The benefits of the system I described here include:
(1) An end to squatting by CorpInc on corpInc.{com|net|org|cc|...} because there would now be (for all practical purposes) and infinite number op possible combinations of CorpInc.* and *.CorpInc. Even microsoft can't affort to buy up microsoft.* and *.microsoft.
(2) An end to domain hoarders in general. With unlimited variations, no one domain name is all that important. Thus they lose their resaleable value.
(3) Space for similarly named companies to all happily coexist. apple.computers, apple.records, apple.farms, apple.employment, john.apple, the-big.apple, etc. No need to sue for limited domain name since they're no longer a limited resource.
Other possibility is to allow the full Unicide character set in domain names.
Thoughts?
Remeber that all domain names technically end in '.' (e.g., www.whitehouse.gov.), where '.' represents the "top level" domain under which domains like 'com', 'org', et al are registered.
So if someone were to create a 'slash' domain on the same level as 'com', the URL:
slash.
could be a perfectly legal and workable address, assuming your browser accepted it.
"Reactionaries must be deprived of the right to voice their opinions; only the people have that right." - Mao
No, really, when I was learning english, I was taught the english word "Bank" means independent, monetary investments and credit institution. Now, I gues banc is the smaler brother of Bank?
Sigged!
i think it'd be funny if they created the .cum's for pr0n... like the ad's would be "now part of the .cum netowrk" and ibm would be the dot in dot cum
Good idea. Block all the .sex and you'll be fine.
.edu. .net & .com (and hell, .org too).
Never mind all the porn on foreign servers.
Never mind all the porn on IPs that don't have domain names.
Never mind all the porn sites on student web sites on
Never mind all the porn sites on private web sites on
The .us domain is the only one more screwed up than .net and .org
.com stuff may be less attactvie and to add some reagonality that .us can't provide) .au and is so much cooler)
There needs to be three new TLDs:
.usa (so that the wrold wide
.xxx (to give all these silly goverments material for new laws)
.oz (which was the first country code for
How would you tell top level domains from local-domain host names? Where I am there is a machine solomon.cs.rose-hulman.edu (it's the news server), and if someone registered "solomon.cs" how would DNS here at Rose distinguish the two hosts?
Will I retire or break 10K?
I say "slash daht, dahdorg" for slashdot.org, and everybody knows what I mean. Of course, I speak American, a fork of the English language that preserves around 98% compatibility; "slash daht, dahdorg" depends on the American mapping from sounds to letters and may need some patching to get it to work in pure English interpreters.
Will I retire or break 10K?
in the UK, if I type "yell", I want it to go www.yell.co.uk and not to www.yell.com. There should be an ordered list of domain extensions it should look at which the user can re-order, add to, delete from.
Then add "co.uk" in your domain search path. I'm not booted into Windows at the moment, but in GNU/Linux it's in /etc/resolv.conf.
Will I retire or break 10K?
that would be even better, http://slashdot.dot
Ewige Blumenkraft.
I hope banc is not the actual spelling of banking toplevel domain! Damn feriners!
The current Slashdot moderation system is made by gay communists!
but I think there really ought to be a .sex just to help me (ummm) avoid it. Yeah. Avoid it.
.sex; it'll avoid you. :-)
The fact that you're posting on Slashdot implies that you won't have to avoid
When has this been enforced? We have .com churches, .net commercial entities, .org commercial entities... Even worse, who stays in his country's TLD? At least in Mexico, over half the domain population is not .mx... This should be addressed, but it is too late now :(
The TLD that we really need is a .home or something similar .me would have been better but some country already has that (I'm too lazy to look it up) It should be used ONLY for personal home pages and shouldn't cost any more than $5/year to register under.
.us (pronounce it "dot us" not "dot u-s") would be ok, it's already there as the USA country code and nobody is using it. Why oh why is such a resource being allowed to go to waste? It would be cool to have ourfamily.us
now that I think of it
Domains are worth too much unnecessarily. They could be essentially free although there does need to be restricts to at least repress mass-squating. The current TLD's just don't catagorised the web very well, it may have worked in 1994 but it's been a comprimise for a long time.
To solve the problem of some squatting, say registering microsoft.sex, there should be a general tld, say .x or .gen or whatever. Why not .com? Well, firstly it means ".commericial" and secondly it's too far gone a case. Starting fresh is a good thing. Oh, and we can alieviate .com fever for all those droogs in "traditional" meida.
Trolls, it must be cool to be that bored.
Know what? All this .com bullshit, and all the domain wierdness is just going to burn itself out.
We are quickly approaching a point where poeple realize that the DNS is *NOT* the best way to look up services, and that the domain name doesn't have to be the most important part of your web presence. It's just a pointer man...
Companies who make their money off of registration *need* to get more TLD's, or they will go out of business. Think about it. We run out of meaningful domains, but don't run out of meaningful things to put on the web, so people will find other ways to do it. I mean, really.. if people know an address once, they know it anyway.. it doesn't have to be a catchy domain. Heck, most are too long to bother typing anyway..... I just bookmark it or yahoo it..
i think that a certain redmond-based law/marketing/general crap - firm would LOVE to see a .ms TLD. Problem is they got the cash to back that up. it would be cool to filter out some webtrash with it eg. block *.ms :) up to the next one to think up some funny hosts, i'm tired
mvg,
Kris "dJOEK" Vandecruys
Exercise caution when modding this message up: the author acts like a jerk when his karma is excellent.
If anyone wants to have this arguments all over again, please go have them with the newdns archives.
.com, .net, and .org were owned by NSI) and make IANA add them to the root servers.
.biz, .xxx, etc. set up their own organizations, servers, and rules and decided that they'd take over the net gradually. If they could get just 5% of the net to use their root servers, the rest of the net would demand access to the new TLDs. And it might have worked if they'd gotten more than 0.05%....
.uk, .mx), and anyone who was to use .int, completely eliminating .com, .net, and .org, not to mention .edu, .gov, and .mil (of course eliminating the inverse-lookup arpa domain breaks bind...).
.com, .net, and .org, and promised to start all over with studying how to expand the TLD space.
Anyway, your history is a little off. I'll try to summarize the summary that I wrote for Esther Dyson a few years back....
Based on some hints from Postel that IANA might consider adding alternate TLDs, a bunch of opportunists decided that they had the mandate to create their own TLDs (each new TLD owned by someone, as
However, IANA's intention was to spend a lot of time studying the best way to handle things, and the group they set up to study it (the group that eventually because the gtld-mou) went off in an entirely different direction. Their plan was for seven new TLDs to be managed by their organization, and anyone who signed up and paid enough money could become a registrar selling names under those TLDs. Which wasn't a bad idea, except for their insane structure and contractual setup--and the idea of putting DNS under ITU.
Meanwhile, the people who'd spent a bunch of money trying to be the first ones to claim exciting names like
Unfortunately, none of these people could get along. eDNS, uDNS, AlterNet... they ended up with a huge mess of infighting and lawsuits. Not to mention the little "joke" AlterNet pulled with the root servers....
While this was going on, the gtld-mou people decided they'd go through the governments of the world--and, when that didn't work, through the ITU.
A third group of people decided that the only way to decide this was through international Internet democracy, and set about coming up with the right way to build such a governance system.
Meanwhile, a company calling itself name.space decided they'd start their own root servers and allow anyone to register any two-level domain name with any TLD, whether it already existed or not. So Rob Malda could have rob.malda, or iam.rob.
Finally, a fifth group (mostly Europeans) wanted to force everyone who wasn't doing something truly international to use the country-code domains (.us,
Then the big question arose: Who actually has the authority to change the system? In the end, only the US government has any authority (they "own" IANA and Internic--and they can make NSI play ball). So some people from the first and third groups, hoping to stop the gtld-mou, went to the US government and began pressuring them to do something.
Somehow, Esther Dyson, in typical Esther Dyson fashion, managed to present herself as the world's foremost expert and the only person who could be trusted to muddle through this.
And in the end, we got ICANN. Backed by the US government, they took the basic gtld-mou idea of a core of registrars and applied it to
So now we get the same arguments all over again. Fun, eh?
no
First, http://www.newdom.com/archive has almost-complete archives of the original IIIA list (also at http://www.iiia.org/lists/newdom) and the most important successors (ar.com and vrx.net/newdom.com).
You may also want to read http://www.newdom.com/archive/iana- meeting.html, about the incident that started the whole thing.
If you want to hear more from the "first group," the lists at http://www.open-rsc.org are still open, and people there continue to boldly beat the dead horse.
The gtld-mou ("second group") site is http://www.gtld-mou.org. You can find the archive to their discussion list at http://www.gtld-mou.org/gtld-disc uss/mail-archive.
The best example of the "third group" can be found at http://www.kenfreed.org. Ken also has a huge collection of useful links (including all of the comments collected by Esther Dyson except mine, for some reason).
The comments to the NTIA are scattered around their website, but start at http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ ntiahome/domainname/domainhome.htm.
The name.space people can be found at http://name.space, but in case you happen to be among the 99.999% of the net that can't resolve that name, they're also http://name.space.xs2.net.
And somewhere, I believe there is an archive of all of the crazy ideas of Jeff Williams.
no
Already exists in the form of the Moldova country TLD (.md).
It is used by heavy weights, like Web.MD, as if www.webMD.com was not enough.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
A number of posters have said (seriously and jokingly) that the TLD namespace should be opened up to any names. This would be a massive mistake, given the way things are currently set up.
.aclu? Is it THE ACLU? Nope, they've got aclu.org. Must be someone else. Ah, Albert Clemens Lucifer Ulbritch.... The namespace is broken up a little right now. .net and .com are not synonymous, but there is not enough distinction (NSI's fault, really). .org is clearly distinguished, and a lot of companies do not bother buying .org because they understand the meaning of it, and it holds no value for them.
.per should exist for individuals. .shop isn't so bad, but there will be a lot of companies that will buy a .shop just because they might want to someday sell something. :-(
.per). If a domain costs $1000/yr to register, most companies will think twice about picking up 100 of them. This seems high, but think about the cost of a sign for your business. What about a new office? Enough computers to run a small department? Domain names are insanely cheap, and the price needs to go up to reflect the value of domain names as a commodity.
First off, you increase the problem drastically. What is
I really think that
The real solution is to start charging big money for domain names (first create a cheap
We shouldn't have generic TLDs. Certainly .gov and .mil should be moved under .us, and non-USA educational institutions don't use .edu, so that could easily be moved under .us.
.org, .net, and .com moved to be under .us, as well. At least the *vast* majority should be moved to .org.us, .net.us, and .com.us.
I would like to see
What's the point of generic top level domains, anyway?
How would I go about making my own TLD? I mean, what kind of stuff do you have to do to set up a computer for that kind of job? Personally I'd like to make .fart or .jihad, and for the more serious domains .nix or something. How could I go about putting my computer somewhere to become a TLD server(?)?.
i want .sig .. yea.. it will be the smallest webstie ever :-)
*Not a Sermon, Just a Thought
*/
So N$I proposes .banc, to be managed by a group of financial interests, .shop to be managed by european domain registrants, but it will keep .com, .org and the other TLDs it currently has a monopoly on? Puhleeze. They're just trying to throw a bone to ICANN while they maneuver to keep profiting. If I were the feds I'd declare their current DNS database public property (because you and I and all the other US taxpayers already bought it) and let N$I figure out how to compete in a real capitalist setup.
//slashdot.dot
I can't even remember what it was I came here to get away from - Bob Dylan