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
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
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
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.
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 (=
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.
Why do they want to mispell bank?
.bank and everyone who has a .banc will need to register the .bank
Five years from now, they can make a
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?
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
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!
I'm getting flashbacks to my Amstrad 6128 days, when games came on disks, discs, disqs, or even disques!
--
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
H-T-T-P-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot :)
Chris Hagar
"The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." - Thomas Jefferson
"screw it! go to H-T-T-P-colon-shash-slash-three-five-two-zero-zero -six-one-four-eight-zero!"
Contrary to the popular belief, there indeed is no God.
http://www.clownpenis.fart
Exactly... .com .org .net, which have no reference to industrial .farm, .food, and .services TLDs,
.dot and .rob
The reason the trademark interests are so
worried about new TLDs is because they are used
to being forced to litigate over
and
specialization. mcdonalds.com is the only
choice for McDonald's Food Corp, and for
McDonald's Plumbing and for old McDonald's Farm.
With a
McDonald's Food Corp would have
no worries about trademark confusion with the
others. This is obvious. Two more domains
isn't going to do it.. ICANN's working Group C
has suggested introducing 7-10 initially
and then expanding. This is closer to the right
idea.
Unfortunately, Roger Cochetti (a NSI exec
and ICANN DNSO member) feels he has the authority
to completely bypass the "months or even years
spent in further analysis, debate about abstract criteria, and lengthy, complex and contentious
procedures and negotiations" which were mandated
by ICANN. ICANN is now very clearly showing it's
true colors. NSI should not be able to just step
in and choose new TLDs just because it finds the
ICANN rules inconvenient. What gives NSI this right? What denies everyone else this right?
Legally, NSI has no more claim on making new
TLDs than Rob Malda, and their proposal should
have just as much validity as his
(ie: none at all). The difference is that they
have planted Cochetti on the Names Council, and
Slashdot hasn't. This isn't democracy, folks...
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
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.
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
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.
These already exist, though I'm not sure of the way to go about getting an address in one. The reason they never caught on is because they're really long, comparatively. Would you rather have www.mysite.com, or www.mysite.bos.ma.us? Schools them, though. My school's website, though I doubt anyone would be interested in it, is www.holliston.k12.ma.us.
Note: I'm not sure if it's currently divided up by city/region, but I know there's state ones. The Massacusetts state website, for example is www.state.ma.us. Guess what the state sites for CA, OH, NE, and AK are?
--
"I personal[ly] think Unix is "superior" because on LSD it tastes like Blue." -- jbarnett
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
.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!
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
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..
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?