Slashdot Mirror
New TLDs On The Way From ICANN
ChrisBennett writes: "ICANN has just suggested a policy for introducing new Top Level Domains. This policy will be considered at the ICANN meeting on July 15-16, 2000 in Yokohama, Japan. I guess we'll be seeing the .rob and .dot TLDs that CmdrTaco wanted after all."
What I heard was there could be .xxx and a .adu for adult. The .adu for stuff like sexual preference and breast cancer.
Linux is only free if your time has no value. Windows is only free if you threaten to use Linux.
- foosucks.com/net/org
- ihatefoo.com/net/org
- foosux.com/net/org
- And so on...
This is a major problem, that I don't know how to solve. Basically, during the first 6 months, all the usable domains will be snatched up by people like this, or squatters, and we will be back to our starting point. Perhaps Slashdotters have any input on this? Any possible solutions?Oh yeah, one more thing. The .cc domains are now available, and you can register them here, and someone named Colin Burns Games has already snatched up slashdot.cc...
--
Topless beaches are more common in Europe than America. I have been to other countries where movie posters on the street showed as much nudity as the movie itself.
What is weird is the extent to which you say things of which you know not.
--
Infuriate left and right
There is a solution, and it's even in use.
.com one isn't a business and is dysfunctional; the .net one has nothing to do with networks of any sort and is dysfunctional; the .org one is not a non-commercial organization: it's a Dutch magazine. Only the Canadian one is properly assigned and functional.
Start using country and state/province designations.
For instance, the domain "writersblock" is a complete cockup. www.writersblock.com/.net/.org/.ca are all taken.
The
This is typical: the TLDs are being misused, all the "good" words are taken and there are more domain name campers than there are fully functioning domains!
Time to cut this shit out. If you're a home-town boy running a freebie web service out of the goodness of your heart, you get a www.goatlovers.springfield.il.us. If your running a registered business within your locale, then you'd get www.goatlovers.il.us. If you are large enough to be in several states, you get to be considered national, and get www.goatlovers.us. Only if you're truly an international business can you score the www.goatlovers.com URL.
This also resolves a lot of the problems with corporations stomping all over people. You could actually have www.cocacola.springfield.il.us! Sure as heck no one is ever going to confuse your URL with www.cocacola.com.
There are flaws with this system, to be sure.
But it's a damned site (ha, ha) less flawed than the TLD cockups we have now and seem to be intent on maintaining.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Steven E. Ehrbar
on the other hand, maybe icann is in bed with nsi or core. there are bound to be a _lot_ more domain registrations with more TLDs to overrun and pollute.
come on. it's pretty obvious that the current system isn't working too well. how about designing a new domain structure and scrapping the current one. make people registering new domains prove that they have a real need for it, and have a group of people monitoring of the registrars to prevent approval of domain name squatting and namespace pollution. offer anyone with a currently active domain free re-registration in the new system, maybe with a free year or something.
i'm sure that everyone will shoot that idea down, but you have to do the same thing to get a block of ip addresses; theory being that if everyone and their brother go out and get a full
--
just because the TLDs are there does not mean that people will use them. and tricks like mis-spellings and foo.net (where foo.com is the `real' site) get those types of sites _far_ more exposure than they would get if they all existed in
--
But I was under the impression that ANYONE could run a root server (certain qualifications withstanding, of course)
In theory, you could. Alternic tried to do that very thing. Unfortunately, you have to talk the rest of the world into using your root servers, a nearly impossible task these days. If no one looks at your root server, no one uses your maps. Right now, NSI has a monopoly on root servers for the com, net, and org TLDs, so everyone has to pay a vig to NSI.
It is one of the reasons a peer-to-peer, more loosely structured heiarchical service is needed to replace DNS, hopefully for IPv6.
Oh, and just in case, IANANSIE, among other things...
Sorry, my comment was more toung in cheeck, not intended as an actuall accusation. I probably should have inserted the appropriate disclaimer in the original post.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
NSI is an accredited registrar, as are the 50 others. NSI is not a monopoly. Everyone has thier own choice... i'm so sick of people crying over NSI.
.com, .net, and .org, and "have to cover their costs" (which, if it were true, would be about $0.06 / domain, not $6).
bzzt!
Thank you for playing, Mr. NSI employee.
If you check the pricing structure of any "accredited registar" you will find that $6 for each domain gets paid to NSI, not matter who you register it with. Yup, that domain you just got from domainmonger.com just sent another $6 into NSI's pockets. Why? They still run the root DNS domains for
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Trademark law is built around the concept of protecting intellectual property, not around avoiding consumer confusion. This avoidance is a by-product and a test of potential infringement, but not the core driver.
As far as the mapping problem goes, this isn't a problem that DNS can solve and one that is addressed quite well by existing trademark law, thank you very much. By using DNS to solve this mapping problem, we are likely to afford IP holders extra-legal protection at the expense of individuals - not something that I particularly look forward to.
"Although we may build the technology that we define as tools, we must be vigilant that those tools do not define us."
Must...resist...urge...to...moderate...up....
:-)
Cheers,
Tim
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Learn, modify, then repeat until failure.
Yours in science,
Bowie J. Poag
Bowie J. Poag
WTF is .cc supposed to represent ?
Pope
Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Of course .invalid isn't there - nobody owns it, and it's not *supposed* to have a network attached to it. .uucp works the way sethg described it, and it's similarly not something that the internic would have a good way to register...
.IN-ADDR.ARPA. is registered in the DNS, even though nobody in particular "owns" it. . (the DNS root) is registered, too. But invalid. doesn't exist.
I'm not saying there are no entries in the domains in question. I'm saying the domains themselves do not exist in the Internet DNS namespace.
For comparison,
But the names are still part of the DNS name space.
Um, no, they're not. For a domain name to be part of the Internet Domain Name System, they must be registered with the root name servers. Simply no two ways about it. If A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET (which is the same as NS.INTERNIC.NET) doesn't know about the domain, it doesn't exist. Period.
Now, maybe someone has a convention of using invalid. as a domain for invalid domains (like many use localdomain. as domain for the localhost entry) but it isn't part of the DNS.
Make sense?
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Now, I'm not saying that hierarchal systems are flawed in general, but they're not good for this purpose.
Unfortunately, the Domain Name System protocol and structure is a hierarchy. It was designed that way on purpose for scalability, delegation, and organizational purposes. This may lead to complex systems, as TBL observed, but there isn't much you can do about it.
Indeed, computers more or less need a hierarchy to be efficient at sorting and lookup, which is exactly what DNS servers do. I'm not so sure we can get around that practical requirement.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Whatever... just because you can't scale it to every atom in the universe doesn't mean it's broken.
/etc/hosts file (or local equivalent). That didn't scale (hey -- there's that word again!) so DNS was invented as a hierarchal way to organize the process.
:)
.com namespace. the whole reason we got into this mess is because it hasn't been expanded.
Right. But if it can't scale to every entity that wants an entry, it is broken. You think it's bad now? What happens when all six billion people on the planet have email, and all the businesses that go with them do too?
The DNS has to scale to this level, or it will collapse.
The whole point of DNS is to make it EASIER to remember site locations.
DNS was invented to automate the process of distributing information about network hosts. It used to be that everyone was listed in everyone else's
It most explicitly was not created to make it easier for someone to guess a company's address by typing random words into the "Location" bar of your browser. The DNS exists to name things. It does not exist to find them. Naming and Finding are two distinctly different things.
And what about people... people want nameservice too.
People generally have physical locations, too.
Again, the better points of DNS is that it doesn't matter where you are or what your ip is.
This is, of course, an issue, and one I don't have an immediate solution for. Businesses, at least, have a place of incorporation, but even that can move if you want. And people move more often then businesses do.
But how do you expect a ".indiv" (or whatever) domain to scale to six billion people? Or more?
And this misuse you speak of.. how are you supposed to keep it from happening in this system as well?
People have legal residences. Businesses have a place of incorporation. These are tried and true methods which are already in place and have been proven to work.
At least you can prove that IBM has nothing to do with: food, sex, banking, personal name or art.
IBM does offer financial services (leasing of equipment and such), so they could certainly justify that. What about their cafeteria food services? And IBM makes large donations to the humanities, so you could argue art as well.
Point being: How do you administer this tangled mess of TLDs you propose we create?
Adding more TLDs would actually lower the value of each TLD, so it's not worth getting ibm.food because no one in their right mind would ever go there.
Wrong. Nobody in their right mind goes to www.yahoo.org, either, but guess who owns it? For any company serious about their Internet presence (which should, eventually, be equal to any company), the cost to register additional domains is small compared to the potential trouble not registering them costs.
The whole point of new TLD's is to relieve the pressure on the
Again I point out that the us. domain structure was created in response to this very problem.
If everybody had to use the long a$$ physical location scheme that would be the biggest boost to alternate forms of address lookups they could possibly hope for.
Great! Then maybe people will stop using the DNS as a phone book and start using it the way it was intended!
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
Why not a limit on the number of diomain names that can be registered to any individual, company or organization.
Gee, it would really suck to be a network application service provider, if you could only have a maximum of two customers.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
.invalid and .uucp ... There are two current TLDs that the ICANN web page doesn't mention.
ns.internic.net doesn't think they exist.
I have to assume it knows what it is talking about.
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
I understand why this would be nice - it's easy to filter and recognize adult sites.
But it won't (and can't) prevent people from putting adult material on any other TLD. So what's the point? All the adults sites that exist now will (most likely) stay where they are.
LL
"If you are falling, dive." -Joseph Campbell
Naming things .mp3 and .exe could quite possibly be a bad idea for people who use Internet Explorer (and let's face it, there are a lot of them). Disregarding the fact that .com has been used for around 20 years as a command file extension in DOS, IE is still able to run an application or file if you just type the name --not even the path, if it's on the desktop.
For more information, click here.
No, no - the cheesy scams go under dotcon.
.cum instead :-)
And to make things interesting for the pr0n industry, let's give them
-John
There are two current TLDs that the ICANN web page doesn't mention. They're both special. .invalid is something that Brad Templeton got approved, which is a reserved name for syntactically correct use in books, local networks, and other things that aren't supposed to propagate to the real world. And .uucp is a wierd domain-like thing for hanging uucp names off of.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
.porn, .sex, .xxx tlds would be handy, but they would only filter 'legit' adult content. (sites like playboy / penthouse that everyone knows)
.com/org/net domains to get hits.
In their scramble for exposure, you'd still get sites squatting on
If the proposal is to force all porn sites into .xxx that's is a very bad idea.
.xxx TLD that would be restricted to just porn sites.
.xxx names (though obviously there will be lawsuits if there is a Metallica.xxx site).
But in fact, the proposal is simply to create a
And I'm assuming this wouldn't have the problems that the current namespace has since I doubt many companies want to register a lot of
ICANN should create .rog, .ogr, .cmo, and similar TLDs, and alias them to the obvious. It would save so much time.
... especially when I type slashdot.rog into lynx and it looks up slashdot.rog.edu, slashdot.rog.com, and slashdot.rog.net as well.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
I absolutely disagree here.
The core tennants of trademark law have nothing to do with intellectual property. Trademarks are not intellectual property in any way (there is no content to them). Trademarks are words and symbols associated with a company and its products. You may be confusing Trademark law with Patent or Copyright law.
So here's the issue (and maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough): if you have a restaurant called McDonald's and I have a software company called McDonald's, we know that consumers will not be confused between the two (you sell greasy burgers and I sell buggy software--no comparison, right?).
Now comes the web. McDonalds.com is just a commercial domain. It does not distinguish what kind of business it is. It's just commercial. You and I both plausibly have a right to the domain and both of us arguably confuse each others customers by using it.
Does that make sense?
We've been hearing about new TLDs for almost two years now. I think we desperately need them. Domain names need to map (at least somewhat loosely) onto international trademark law so that McDonalds.food and McDonalds.bank don't conflict in any way. Trademark law is built around the concept of avoiding consumer confusion.
But I remain sceptical. ICANN has a difficult job, no doubt about it. But so far, they haven't managed to make much progess.
This is what I think will happen. TLDs are still being used as some kind of pigeonholing mechanism. The fact is that life is more complicated than a series of categories.
ICANN's paper makes a great point: the stability of the DNS system is paramount. So while I strongly believe in burning all TLDs, I do think that we'll need some new TLDs as a test before this is possible.
Long term, though, remains the same: we don't need TLDs. They are from a time when the Internet was a regulated government system, and are now obsolete. Nowadays, everyone registers their name under all available TLDs anyway as legal protection. So adding more only will make the same small number of good TLDs more expensive for people like us.
Remove all TLDs, though, and people can establish their own heirarchies. Someone in another thread said this was like AOL keywords. Well, yes and no. It is more extensible, but ultimately, keywords are a better UI than long complex addresses.
In glancing through the document, I notice that they do mention trademark law, and the need for enforcement, but not excessive enforcement. The groups couldn't come to an agreement on how the trademark issue should be dealt with, which is a good sign, I think.
BUT, it will only matter if there is enforcement. .com, .net and .org would have been much better had they been enforced. Granted, we would have "run out" of "useable" domain names long before now, but the users would be much more informed as to their purpose.
So, I'm all for the new gTLDs, as long as the rules for application in .BLAH is public, and strickly enforced. Like someone else meant, they should split them up based on trademark law (hopefully as generic as possible, not US based), so that (to use the other example) McDonalds.food and McDonalds.car_repair aren't both the Micro$o~1 of the eating world.
This is my
This is my
--An Oldie, but a Goodie!
Serve Slashdot via a special "Slash" protocol. This, with the above, gives us:
slash://slashdot.dot/.slash/
"slash colon slash slash slash dot dot dot slash dot slash slash"
Man, now "Slash" doesn't even sound like a real word... it's like when you say "dolphin" over and over again 'til you start wondering who in their right mind would build a doll with fins.
Stay up hacking each weekend. Sleep is for the week.
Reduce the artificial scarcities, and it won't be profitable to snatch up domains anymore, solving the problem quite nicely. Of course, the business of selling them would be hurt, which means I doubt if we'll see it happen anytime soon. Why make it so they only have to buy one domain instead of the three or more they have to get now?
A TLD called .porn
Create a cyber red light district so you can:
1: Know where to go when you want to get dirty.
2: Be able to leave them out of your web search results when are searching for ANYTHING else.
http://pcblues.com - Digits and Wood
slashdot.org would just be "slashdot", and "www.microsoft.com" would just be "www.microsoft" (or "www.microsoft1" and "www.microsoft2" by late next year).
If you really wanted to put something in your url to identify your organization type, you could always just put it at the beginning, like "edu.lcs.mit".
Does anybody see a problem with this?
Information wants to be anthropomorphized.
I'm just wondering if anybody knows what happened to Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding?
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
I think this means I just blew my life savings. Last week I went out and bought $250,000 worth of the "Fuck you and your dot-com" tee shirts.
Oh Sweet Mother of God.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
On the front page of Network Solutions...
Be sure to also register
.net
.org
.dot
.rob
.movie
.travel
.xxx
.sex
.biz
.shop
.art
........
It seems to me that we don't really need anything .banc? Any bank is much more likely to .com than a .banc, especially b/c they .banc without people misspelling it
more than what we have.... for example, why would
we need
get a
couldn't say
in their browser window..
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
First off, I hate to break the bad news to everyone, but that Great New *TLD that just popped into your head? It's been thought of before. By lots of people.
New *TLDs are nothing new, and indeed have been being debated, tossed around, fought over, proposed, implemented, and torn down for the better part of the last decade or so.
CmdrTaco didn't think of .god, .dot, and probably not even .rob. Neither did you, most likely. :)
For a listing of proposed *TLDs and their status, see http://www.earth-net.net/GTLD/database. html (gzipped text file)
Pay particular attention to Field 2, Root Server Providers. Check out the Open Root Server Confederation.
While we're on this subject, a quick redux to the .god TLD... zone files and current status of .god registry.
ANYONE interested in domain policy (and the politics are Quite Interesting in this realm... surf the domain-policy mailing list archives (hosted by InterNIC).
If the companies that give out registered DNS names on the Internet (Network Solutions, Register.com, and so on) can agree to a standard on how to give out names using the new TLD's, then we can save ourselves a lot of hassles on how to "block" unauthorized sites from children.
.AOS (AOS means Adult-Only Site). Web browsers from the start can set the default so they can't log onto .AOS sites without first sending an encrypted password. For example, Playboy's web site can be divided into two parts, one the original playboy.com for their general-interest material and the new playboy.aos for their adult-oriented material. It also means sites such as whitehouse.com will have to switch to whitehouse.aos to avoid confusion with the whitehouse.gov domain.
I myself would propose this TLD for adult sites:
If I were the ITU-TSS I would strongly suggest they hold a conference in conjunction with ICANN to finalize the new TLD names as soon as possible.
Raymond in Mountain View, CA
(Links to the Jargon File provided for you kids who don't remember what it was like in the old days, when we had to carve email messages on clay tablets and haul them to the server room, two miles away in the snow, uphill both ways....)
--
send all spam to theotherwhitemeat@ropine.com
A new organization - MINC - is being setup to make domain names multilingual. If you speak a language other than English, please check it out.
Wouldn't .mp3 just piss off the RIAA! -if common-sense was common wouldn't everyone have it?
if common sense was common, wouldn't everyone have it?
Country TLDs are useful. So are .com, .net, and .org -- each has a meaning.
.god? I mean, really, it is just a waste. Sure, getting i-am.god or *.is.god would be nice, but churches can use .org. There is no need to add to the confusion many newbies suffer when going online.
.net?"
However, what really is the purpose of
"Hey, my favorite website doesn't work!"
"Did you make sure to type in
"Oh. It works."
The panel itself may be a good idea, if only to restrict frivolous TLDs.
|/usr/games/fortune
The original TLD's were probably a pretty good idea once upon a time, but now, everyone knows that things on the Internet starts in www and ends in .com. (barely better than the people who ask if you have a "screen name" rather than an e-mail address). Everything except .edu and .gov are so polluted as to be meaningless. Look where we right now...slashdot.ORG? Why? Or perhaps my college, which has registered not only mit.edu, but also mit.com, mit.net and mit.org
If it weren't for the incredible mess it would create, I would suggest that we abandon TLDs altogether. I always spell .com wrong anyway...
I'm going to live forever or die trying.
Yes, then the International Association for Dyslexic People could register dp.qb
None of them would *ever* find it.
The regular
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
DNS needs a ".alt" top level domain.
When the Big 7 newsgroups were being drafted on USENET just prior to the great flag day, this simple need was recognized practically from day one and .alt was born (and is today bigger than all the Big 7 groups combined).
Flame all you want, but without a dumping ground where anything goes without restrictions, the trash will not go away. It will seep into all areas of the "approved TLDs".
If an .alt TLD is set up, it will make rule violations in the remaining TLDs much easier to enforce because there will always be an alternative. "You didn't have to create [domain] here".
Trap the rats with no way to register their profane, controversial, questionable, or whatever-offends-whoever domains and they'll start clawing at the walls of whatever other heirarchy they can get at.
Remember, in the Big 7 newsgroups, there was no room for sex or drugs, so these because the very first two alt groups.
Even the cleanest, most orderly city still has a garbage dump.
Jesus wept. Just when I think they can't get any dumber!
They are going to turn DNS into WINS. From a heirarchical naming system into a flat naming system. They must be stopped!
The ICANN / Registrar DNS diatribe
Deleted
We've been hearing about new TLDs for, oh, at least an eternity. Maybe even two.
.net, .org, .ca ,.xxx, .god and whatever other .tlds are available?
And let's face it: all so-called corporate names will be immediately obtained and/or sued-for by their so-called owners; and all remaining sensible names will be immediately obtained and camped-on by the domain name resellers.
You and I, who may have need for a website six months from now, are *ALWAYS* going to be screwed: the name we'd have used is gone.
And even if you do manage to get the DNS you wanted -- www.borsht.??? -- who the hell's ever going to find it? www.borsht.com is gone (to a domain name camping asshole, of course), and who's ever going to have patience to try
The ONLY solution is to bag this silly-ass naming system and come up with something that allows people to type in a more unique, descriptive name that isn't duplicated umpteen times over with the most minor of variations...
Rant, roar.
www.borsht.com for sale. My god.
--
--
Don't like it? Respond with words, not karma.
Wonderful. More TLDs. That's a lousy answer to a problem that isn't the real problem. Two strikes at once. Great job.
/ (the root, C:\ for Windows folks), you shouldn't try and put every entity in the universe under .COM.
.COM domains. Make people use the system put in place to solve this problem over ten years ago.
Here is why it is the wrong answer: It won't work. Right now, companies (and squatters) register foo.com, foo.net, and foo.org, "just to make sure" they have all the bases covered. All this is going to do is make Network Solutions and the other registrars more money.
The real problem is that everybody is trying to map a virtually infinite number of items (i.e., the known universe, as far as the Internet is concerned) into a limited namespace (English words and phrases less then 64 characters long). Anyone with half a brain can tell you that is a solution that is inherently unscalable.
The only way to make a system like this scalable is to switch to a hierarchical system. Just like you don't put every file (or directory) on a system under
There are two hierarchies I can think of: By category, and by location.
By category would mean that instead of microsoft.com, we would get microsoft.software.computers.com or something. Basically, use a Yahoo!(TM)-style structure to structure the Domain Name System.
There are three problems with this approach that make it unworkable. First, who gets to decide the categories, and what category a given site falls under? Is this slashdot.talk.org or slashdot.computers.com or slashdot.geeks.culture.rec.com or what?
Second, the administrative overhead of all this sorting would be prohibitively high. Registering a domain should not require a six-month background check.
Third, and most importantly, you can still have name collisions in a particular field, so long as they are geographically seperated. There must be an "Atlas Auto Body" in every county in New Hampshire. So who gets atlas.bodyshops.auto.com?
No, the only method that will scale with reality is to model the DNS after reality: Physical location. There are already existing mechanisms to make sure there aren't two Atlas Auto Body shops in Concord, NH. So make the domain atlasautobody.concord.nh.us, and the problem is solved.
Yes, it does mean Microsoft would be microsoft.redmond.wa.us. But such is life. People already remember names, addresses, phone numbers, and other things with much less sense then this.
Not coincidentally, the mechanism to do this is already in place. Just nobody uses it.
My solution? Don't add new TLDs. In fact, don't add new 2LD (Second Level Domains) either. No more new
dragonhawk@iname.microsoft.com
I do not like Microsoft. Remove them from my email address.
While I think that the inclusion of new TLDs is a good idea, I am against anything that is too finely done.
.protest domain. You are one of the vendors of filtering and blocking software. Anything against the norm? Why not just block .protest. Same goes for companies and/or oppressive governments with nasty firewalls.
Imagine, a
The move toward more TLDs is a good thing. We just need to be sure that we don't make it too easy to filter out "undesirable" speech.
-Chris
I would've thought it would have been Microsoft who'd be asking for a .rob TLD. You know, right up there with .rape, .pillage, .extend, and .extinguish.
"If one is really a superior person, the fact is likely to leak out without too much assistance" -- John Andrew Holmes
Some years ago here in Brazil the only ones that could register a domain name were companies (and they had to prove they were companies). Regular people also wanted to register domains, as Internet was gaining popularity and personal websites becoming common. So they started complaining, and the powers that be decided to create new Brazilian TLDs just for regular people.
They were so wise that they had a brilliant idea. To create various TLD's, each one for an occupation. So far so good. In a demonstration of their wisdom, they keenly chose 23 occupations as deserving a TLD. Some of them:
Obviously people just ignored these ridiculous TLDs and continued registering
Amazing, isn't it ?
-
Roses are #FF0000, Violets are #0000FF, find / -name '*base*' |xargs chown -R us && mv zig greatjustice
Lots of 'mericans would say any partial nudity belongs n the .xxx domain; lots of people elsewhere in the world laugh at that. Lots of 'mericans would say violence *doesn't* belong in .xxx; lots of others would disagree. My brother-in-law will happily rent the goriest action videos for his kids, with profanity, gore, mayhem, etc, but it better not show much in the way of nudity.
It wouldn't work. It would just create more and more arguments.
--
Infuriate left and right
Well, we keep hearing the same refrain of "slow and controlled manner" that we have for the past decade. If this gets any more slow and controlled we could all be dead before the next TLD is born.
But seriously, why the emphasis on keeping domaind artificially scarce? The argument they keep discussing is one of needing to protect valuable marks, but that is only necessary when a limited number of domains are available. If you can register any 3-letter combination as a TLD (minus a few restricted ones?), you have just made it financally prohibitive for anyone with even a huge bankroll to do any domain squatting.
It is only by making domains scarce that they become individually valuable or threatening -- make them plentiful and it's up to the company to bring the value to the name (rather than vice-versa: the "roulette wheel" theory of domain registration - pick the right one and you're rich!)
At least they sort of tangentially talk about this when asking about differentiation. Why the hell should ICANN be concerned about differentiation? When companies are paying 50 grand to come up with names like Agilent and Agilant within 12 months of each other, why should ICANN be looking out for corporate identity differentiation? Bury us in 999 TLDs and maybe Agilent and Agilant can differentiate themselves with the extra three letters...
Recursive: Adj. See Recursive.
http://slash.dot/.slash/
"aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot slash dot slash slash".
My blog: http://www.seebs.net/log/ --- My iPhone/iPad app: http://www.seebs.net/seebsfrac/
I actually think the best suggestion for a new top level domain in the document is a TLD devoted to material of an 'adult' nature. Such a domain is one of the few I think would gain rapid support among it's target community. We all hope the Internet will remain relatively free of control, but the nay-sayers continue to point out that the net is full of pornography etc. A new TLD for new sites and hopefully a reasonable degree of migration of existing adult material will serve to provide a degree of separation. The average adult (male at least) probably knows where the local adult store is in town and can make the choice for themselves. With a designated TLD the same will hopefully become true of the internet, this I feel will weaken the argument of the censors without reducing freedom. And besides, if your that way inclined you'll know where all the good stuff is.
"Last night I loaded up one of those trashy .com sites. You know, just for the articles." *snicker*
"I think freedom of speech is fine, so long as my children don't get exposed to any of those .com sites."
Other useful ones might be .info (public information servers), .ent (entertainment, also easily corruptible), and .dotcom (cheesy internet scams)
--
share and enjoy