.god Domain Names: Another "Pioneer" Registrar

commodoresloat writes: "According to this article, the top-level domain (TLD) .god will soon be available. Most interesting is that Joe Baptista, who will be selling domain names under the TLD, says outright that he will not respect trademarks or even court decisions ordering him to respect trademarks. Does this mean anyone can register microsoft.god?" Available, maybe, but not very useful if ICANN doesn't care to ever recognize them. Note, though, the site is only semi-functional. "The registry will allow you to look up dot.god names for availability but it will not allow you to register at this time." Pity. I hope CmdrTaco gets credit.

Comments

I want to register is.god..

[citizenc]

.. so I can good subdomains:

• slashdot.is.god
• citizenc.is.god
• bill.gates.thinks.that.he.is.god

Of course there are OTHER is.god subdomains.. anybody ELSE have good ones? =)


.- CitizenC (User Info)

Who does this guy think he is?

[Zoyd]

...Joe Baptista, who will be selling domain names under the TLD, says outright that he will not respect trademarks or even court decisions ordering him to respect trademarks.

Well, who does he think he is? God?

Viva la Revolution!

[Wellspring]

I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Burn All TLDs!!! OK, I really, really am serious. We simply don't need them.

Think about it. Companies will always buy their domain name with every possible TLD no matter how many there are. So it isn't like we'll get any more domain names appearing when we create more and more restrictive rules.

Meanwhile, the trademark disputes won't stop. They'll just get more lucrative. What's the point of trying to pigeonhole every site by its Jungian archetype? TLDs like .gov can exist, certainly, but why make those last three letters so important? Let's just open it up.

Anything should be allowed to be a TLD. If coke wants to buy .coke, then fine. We've grown out of this authoritarian need to control everything. Let's just let go, and reorganize at a higher level.

Funny as it sounds Burn All TLDs is really what I think we need to do. Leave it ALL open for everyone. If slashdot wants .slashdot or .flame or .grits, what other than an anal need to organize everything should stop them?

I get the feeling that, like all the other times I have said this, I'll either get moderated into the floor or ignored. But this really is an important thing to think about. We all assign some magic importance to it, but it is just an organizing convention from the prehistoric past.

Arpanet is gone. Time for us to find our names for ourselves.

Joe Baptista on MAPS RBL

[Analysis Paralysis]

Joe Baptista's domain is on the Realtime Blackhole List for spamming. Check this for full details.

SnowPhoton's TLD Hut

[zpengo]

Hurry hurry hurry!

Today only, register your domain under the following TLDs:

• .atemyballs
• .isawebsite
• .foo
• .dotdot (e.g., slashdot dot dot)
• .natalie

Each registration costs only $100. Get yours fast!

note: this service does not cover anything other than adding your name to a list.

Make your checks out to...

Yet Another New TLD Proposal

[billstewart]

Back when the DNS was first coming out, some of us UUCP-geezers weren't convinced that a central registration system would be accepted by the community - this was before trademarks were an issue, and it was ok to name your PDPs and Vaxen after colors like red, green, and blue, or common office equipment like xerox, coke, and mrcoffee, and there were 17+ machines named mozart and 30+ named bilbo or frodo. Local naming was the only real alternative (remember bang-routed email addresses?). Needless to say, we were wrong, and DNS was a big success for the first decade and a half, but there's still the problem that if there's only One Root To Rule Them All, somebody's got to run the thing and there will be naming conflicts. One of the main reasons DNS worked as well as it did is that most machines belonged to organizations with well-identified names, and they could fight it out internally for whose machine got to be mozart.foobar.com.

There have been several proposals for adding more TLDs - the IAHC International Ad-Hoc Committee was relatively reasonable, ICANN was a bit less so, thoguh that was partly because it was a year or two later so there was more commercial conflict, and Esther (bless her heart) knew it would be a dirty job when she took it. As far as I know, the only proposals for new TLDs that have actually succeeded have been a few new country codes (because there's an existing bureaucracy for that, plus of course the countries who've made a quick buck by renting out their namespace), and Brad Templeton's proposal for .invalid, which is declared to be syntactically correct, so you can use it in books and demoware, but doesn't point to anything real.

There have also been the disorganized proposals, from people like Kaspureff at Alternic, and the orange.net folks - start an alternative root, and try to convince people to use your root instead of the Big Roots, but they're fighting a losing game. It's partly a losing game because they've been losing (:-), and partly because it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, it just trashes any efficiencies you gain by shoving conflicting names down a layer in the tree so you don't see them if you're not looking for them.

The people who've been successful at pushing new namespaces have taken different approaches - ICQ numbers are a global namespace, and nobody minds because they don't spell anything and the server can cope with the scale. Realnames sells namespace, and people who want it can use it. And all of these things can easily be patched under the DNS tree, e.g. 1234567678.icq.net or mycompanyname.realnames.com.

(Unless I'm mixing up names,) Joe does, however, get Extra Slack points for having been the guy who tied up various Canadian provincial and federal government organizations for a while by constantly faxing them his requests for fair treatment, better laws and regulations, etc.

Cripes...

[Greyfox]

I could set up a TLD and not have it recognized by ICANN. It doesn't take a whole lot to create one. Having anyone on the Internet be able to resolve it and not corrupting legitimate root servers are rather more difficult issues. I seem to recall that you'll get arrested or sued (I forget which at the moment) if you corrupt the root level DNS servers (Remember, the guy from Alternic did this a while back) so if that happens you can use the headline 'They killed .god!'

If you want to do something really useful, modify gethostbyname() etc to use LDAP calls and set up an LDAP naming service.

WHOIS my.god

[jcsmith]

Someone needs to register my.god just because it makes a sweet WHOIS lookup. It's perfect for those youngsters who are trying to find myself. Who needs years of self exploration when you can just boot up the box and type WHOIS my.god and get all the answers.