Slashdot Mirror
FSF Proposes .gnu TLD To ICANN
n3rd writes "It looks like the Free Software Foundation would like a .gnu TLD (Top Level Domain) in order to 'expand the name space, particularly for individuals and software developers who cannot find the name they want from .com, .net or .org'. If additional TLDs are going to be added, shouldn't they be more 'generic' so everyone can make use of them, not just the OSS community?" No. I want the TLD "Dot". Please? With Sugar on Top?
Will this take to happen. Seriously. People have been badmittoning ideas for new TLDs around for at least 5 years. I think we really need to see .sex or .xxx before we see .gnu, though I do admit it would be cool for prestige.
----
----
Am I the only one who thinks Microsoft is a misnomer? Perhaps Macrosoft would be a better fit?
Allow anything to be used as a TLD.
HOWEVER, still require registrations to consist of domain name + TLD. i.e., you must still sumbit both parts to constitute a single registration application. The TLD itself cannot be registered to anyone. and remains open for anyone to use.
I like the idea, but it breaks the hierarchical nature of DNS. Each "." in a machine name delimits a "zone of authority". With out any cacheing, you have to ask a root server for a server that can answer .org queries. Then you ask that server for a server that can answer .slashdot.org queries. Lastly you ask that server for the address of www.slashdot.org. Normally, most of this data is cached in the lower levels of the hierarchy, giving use reasonable DNS performance as well as managability.
As good as this idea is, it won't be adopted any time soon because of the infrastructure changes needed to support an unlimited number of TLDs.
"Go to www.software.gnu"
"Did you say .new?"
"No, .gnu."
Ack.
...phil
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
Imagine that you have the choice between shopping at Amazon.com or Amazon.gnu. Which one do you choose? What message does that send to the world at large? A good one, I'd think...
Carefree highway, let me slip away on you.
Originally the TLDs existed to help sort out sites by their content.. e.g. .org's were supposed to be for non-profit organizations. This didn't quite happen, now did it? If this were the case, microsoft.org wouldn't go to the same place as microsoft.com. So what good then does it do to add more domains without registration restrictions? Without these, you can be sure microsoft.gnu is going to go to the same site as right now.
No. I want the TLD "Dot". Please? With Sugar on Top?
aych tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot dot
(http://slashdot.dot)
There's trouble.
I think that the Free Software Foundation is a little late on the ball in supporting the community - they needed to have something like this years before. Unfortunately, most FSF software is done cathedral-style, and that's why Open Source is a stronger idea - because it builds a community. I can get *.sourceforge.net, but GNU has up until now made no moves towards supporting the Free Software community - which is why there isn't one.
I'll support the community that supports me, thank you. In the mean time, push for a .oss for open source software.
Is RMS really so arrogant as to think ICANN will create a TLD devoted to his organization? Let's be real: GNU is a brand, and if any other brand tried to pull this kind of stunt, we'd be screaming bloody murder about the Internet succumbing to private interests. Can you imagine the outrage if someone proposed .msft? .att? .sun?
.gnu -- not in a million years.
So I say:
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Not according to the InterNIC's zone file, which is easily downloaded from ftp://rs.internic.net/domain. A summarized version:
; The use of the Data contained in Network Solutions' aggregated .com, .org, and .net top-level domain zone files (including the checksum
;
; files) is subject to the restrictions described in the access Agreement
; with Network Solutions.
ARPA. IN SOA A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. hostmaster.internic.net. (
;End of file.
(snip SOA)
ARPA. 518400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
(snip 8 root-servers.net entries, B-I in order of H, C, G, F, B, I, E, D)
A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 518400 IN A 198.41.0.4
(snip the above root-servers.net entries' IP addresses)
IN-ADDR.ARPA. 172800 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET.
(snip again, same order)
So there are no sites under .arpa, just in-addr :)
--------------------
So why isn't this even being considered? As far as I can tell, it's because big companies want to be guaranteed that they can get the second-level domain corresponding to their trademarks under ALL existing TLDs. This is ridiculous, and totally unlike the way trademarks act in the real world.
(If I have a trademark on the word "Foo" for my brand of widgets, I can't stop you from using that trademark for an entirely different kind of product, and I certainly can't stop you from using it in conversation, or as a nickname, etc.)
Increasingly, it seems that big-money interests see the digital age as a chance to extend their (government-given) intellectual property rights much much farther than they've ever been before -- taking more and more rights away from the individual.
So sure, allow a
--
Allow anything to be used as a TLD.
HOWEVER, still require registrations to consist of domain name + TLD. i.e., you must still sumbit both parts to constitute a single registration application. The TLD itself cannot be registered to anyone. and remains open for anyone to use.
This would END squatting because it would be impossible for Microsoft, etc. to register all forms of Microsoft.* as doing so would require infinite money.
This also allows same named entities to coexist. Apple Records can have apple.records. Apple computer can have apple.computers. A farmer in WA can have apple.farms. While another company can have foster.farms.
Unownable TLDs also ENDS the "domain brokering" business because specific domains cease to possess any value. If you have foo.com, foo.net, and foo.org, you can demand high $$$ from any foo entities. With infinite TLDs, there's always an alternative choice.
How to implement this from a tech POV? Use the first letter of the TLD to divide up the TLDs among the root servers to balance the load. Subdivide for common letters.
Will ICANN do this? Heck no. Bidding wars over limited domains generates big $$$. And trademark holders like the idea of "buying up all variations of our name so no one else can use it". So between the $$$ and politics, I suppose this sensible suggestion will never happen.
- brandspankin.gnu
- out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the.gnu
- spiro-a.gnu
Cheers,IT
Power corrupts. PowerPoint corrupts absolutely.
Really what they should do is provide hostname entries under gnu.org or fsf.org rather than cluttering up namespace with yet another TLD. There is no need for a .gnu TLD, and the FSF is really showing some audacity to think that they deserve one.
Screw Micro$oft.
The most needed TLD right now is .alt
.alt domain.
that way all the crazy stuff that's not good for "normal healthy americans" can hang out there unmolested.
on top of that we need a law saying you can't sue someone over their
wish
---
It's been widely speculated that the reasons .biz and .arts and the other .vapor TLDs never came to pass is because of pressure from business groups who want to ensure the namespace becomes as small as possible to ensuring nobody infringes their copyrights/trademarks/whatever. The more new TLDs we have, the more different variations on their name Disney and the 300 other agressively defensive businesses have to register. (of course, the fact that every corporation simply registers itself in every single TLD defeats the purpose of new TLDs in the first place, but whatever.)
.gnu has a pretty good chance of getting approved. After all, make a TLD in which each group must be certified as open-source, and you neatly throw out the problem of copyright disputes. I mean, orgainize nothing but free/open software and you don't have domains with copyrighted names, because all the projects are copylefted. Hence, no worries for the Men In Suits, who feel reassured by the fact the TLD isn't open to all comers. Hence, no political/monetary "pressure" on ICANN. Hence, nothing bars it, and the OSS people get a TLD.
.gnu TLD may result in some Etoy Vs Etoys type disputes, but in the end the fact is that there will never be a coca-cola.gnu or ford.gnu or a microsoft.gnu-- and no huge corporations feeling "threatened". (silly word to use there, i know..)
.fsf than with .gnu, because .gnu implies less [and avoids the pronunciation problems mentioned in earlier threads..]
If you take it as given that the above paragraph is actually true, then
Now, of course, you could claim that they [the Suited People] would be scared more, because free software people tend to defend their copylefted ground rather fiercely, but you'd be wrong. A
(oh, and on that last note: what if a company does _some_ open source but not _all_? Apple, as part of their Darwin project, has released code under their own APSL but has also given out [or at least is about to give out] some code *cough* *cough* EGCS enhancements *cough* as GPLed (mostly for the purpose of being integrated into an existing GPLed codebase..). Based on this, should apple get an apple.gnu TLD to map to publicsource.apple.com, even though the majority of the software there is not actually GPLed?)
As for "does the FSF deserve a TLD"..? well, hell, they give them to countries, right? I honestly think that the GNU foundation has a bigger impact on geopolitics than Christmas Island.
Unfortunately the whole question becomes very painful when you bring up the question of What About BSD? and What About Qt/KDE? I'd like to hope any TLD made will have a more loose definition of "free" than "the GPL". [i like the LGPL better personally, but that's a flamewar for another day..].. In other words i'd just be a hell of a lot happier with
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
For example, I recently saw in 2600 Magazine how Verizon (the result of the Bell Atlantic/GTE merger) registered something like seven hundred domains, all with "Verizon" in them... even insulting ones, like "verizonsucks.com". They had registered all these domains under the .com, .net and .org TLDs. When the 2600 guys couldn't register "verizonsucks.com", they registered "verizonREALLYsucks.com". In response, Verizon sent them a letter informing them of their violation of trademark laws. Read all about it straight from the horse's mouth. (This brings up the point: If Verizon registered "robdumas.com", could that be considered to be fraudulently using my name? I mean, after all, if I can't register a domain with THEIR name, would I/should I let them register a domain with MY name in it?)
Anyway, simply adding a new TLD will just mean that they register there, too.
The only way a .gnu TLD would be worth adding is if we, the Open Source community, somehow controlled it, so we could attempt to keep cybersquatters out, without compromising the freedom of it. Perhaps in order to GET a .gnu domain, you must PRODUCE something under the GNU Public License.
Hey, maybe one day we'll all open up Slashdot to find that Microsoft wants to register "microsoft.gnu"! Ha!
Two final point of interest, somewhat related to this story/thread:
I'm interested to hear what others have to say about the topic. Reply here, or e-mail me.
----------------------------------------
Robert Dumas