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?

Comments

The Solution: Allow ***ALL*** TLDs.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriosuly.

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.

In the unlikely event that this happens ...

[IntelliTubbie]

I want the following domains:

• brandspankin.gnu
• out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the.gnu
• spiro-a.gnu
  

Cheers,
IT

Re:*.gnu.org

[gfoyle]

This is the way to keep domains meaningful (or as meaningless as the DNS guru of the SLD cares to make it). It is how things are done in the .US TLD. Volunteers came forward to handle various cities and to distrbute the domains for those municipalities. If gnu.org was willing to let software developers have third level domains, I could go to ssh.gnu.org and know I would get the site(s) for ssh tools. The same holds true for movies; x-men.fox.com is 10^6 times better than www.x-men-the-movie.com AND it gives fox a little publicity to boot. Too many TLDs is just asking for trouble (although I think we need more than 3).

Problems with .gnu and other observations.

[Devil]

The problem is that we'll have the same domain squatting that we've had in the past, and we will have solved nothing.

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:

1. The policy of InterNIC USED to be $70US for two years (or $35US per year). This was a FLAT fee. Unfortunately, thanks to the agreement reached between ICANN and NSI last year, NSI can charge whatever it likes (well, presumably within reason). So how long do you think it'll be before NSI puts up its own "domain auction" site? Before you know it, joeschmoe.com, joeschmoe.net and joeschmoe.org will be owned by Ted Turner (or someone like him; I have nothing against Mr. Turner), and would cost you thousands of dollars to get back.
2. I find it VERY unnerving that Register.com, one of the new domain registrars, is an "affiliate" of GreatDomains.com, a company who basically buys and sells domains to the highest bidder. I happen to own "novastar.net" (no, there's nothing there... I haven't gotten around to it), and registering it cost me $70US. No more, no less. But, according to GreatDomains.com, the domain "novastar.org" would cost me $250,000US! Is that a rip-off, or what?

I'm interested to hear what others have to say about the topic. Reply here, or e-mail me.
----------------------------------------
Robert Dumas