Slashdot Mirror
ICANN Has Approved New TLDs
dilip writes: "An Associated Press story mentions that new TLD's have been given the green light. It also mentions that there is no decision on how they will be doled out, what they will be or how trademarks will be handled.
Please note however that ICANN's own website doesn't have any mention of this yet (The story is dated the 16th, which is a Sunday, no doubt that the ICANN site will be updated on the Monday)" [timothy butts in:] John Jorsett points to this ZDNet article which says the domains include .shop, .tel and .news.
a search on yahoo for "microsoft underwear" will find ya more links
-f
-f
www.blackant.net
Does it go on forever?
If ICANN plan to let somecompany.com get first call on somecompany.shop, the number of new domain names will not increase significantly. The same thing will happen if they auction the site names. In fact, the only way to properly and significantly diversify the universe of top-level domains is to get rid of the .com domain, abolish it altogether and replace it with .shop, .banc, etc, instead of merely *supplementing* it with those new TLDs.
Of course, this is unlikely (because the pressure will be on to have some sort of bidding process, in the mistaken belief that this will efficiently allocate domain names). But if it doesn't happen, there'll be a much smaller increase in the number of available domains than we'd like.
Anybody have any real idea what .tel is for? Is it for WAP accessable sites (e.g. slashdot.tel for a WAP version of /.), or for Net->Phone gateways (quick, bring up 911.tel!) or for whistle-blowers (I'm gonna .tel, I'm gonna .tel!)?
www.eFax.com are spammers
Just some ideas of the top of my head...
What if the price was on a scale? That is, after the first fifteen domains registered the price goes up? It would be hard to enforce, as you could have each employee in a company register fifteen domains or something equally ridiculous. Then there's the situation of legimate use. For example, my organization has a lot of domains, but we intend to use them all (make real web sites out of them). People have offered to buy them, but we have turned them down.
Maybe the solution, therefore, would be to limit how quickly you could transfer the ownership to another entitiy? That way, the "squatters" couldn't buy a good domain one day, and then sell it at a 4000% markup the next, never having intent to use it themselves. No immediate gradification.
- Scott
------
Scott Stevenson
Scott Stevenson
Tree House Ideas
Actually, I can't find ANY documents showing that it is for "non-profit", I see where it is listed as a "catch-all" to catch categories "not in the above", but just because you're not .com-mercial doesn't mean you're not-for-profit. (e.g., a personal domain). D
Will we now have www.slashdot.news as our start page in Mozilla? Will we now shop at amazon.shop? Will we now do anything else different in the way we shop of surf or read news on the web? NO. The current *.com's *.net's and *.orgs will most likely just grab there namesake with a new .whatever and that will be that. I would be surprised if we use any of these on a regular basis in the near future.
Of course, that's just my opinion.
"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't there more happy people in the world?"
[That, of course, must be said in one's best Apu voice]
Fuck this shit! It's gonna be the fucking apocolypse man. Fucking registrations flying it from every fucking registrar. Shit. And the registrants are gonna be riding fucking net splits like on fucking IRC man with the simultaneous fucking reg attempts. There's only one fucking solution. I now repost the AC's comment:
The Solution: Allow ***ALL*** TLDs.
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 registrationa 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. Joe Apple can have joe.apple. NYC can have the-big.apple. All existing in parallel yet not conflicting with each other.
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 $$$ from any foo entities. With infinite TLDs, there's always an alternative choice.
How to implement this from a tech POV? Use the first letter of the TLD to divide up the TLDs among the root servers to balance the load. Subdivide for common letters. Custom DNS software? Yes. But *only* for the root servers. The rest of us need not change a thing.
Will ICANN do this? Heck no. Bidding wars over limited domains generates big $$$. 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.
Talk about irony, why don't you? = ) The GIF is here and you may have to reload it a few times to get the version listed above, but all of them share the same concept anyway.
-- "I can't tell the future, I just work there." -- The Doctor
I have said for years that this would be the number one way to avoid having congress pass COPA. Porn site operators don't want minors on their site, they don't have credit cards. This makes it easy for parents and libraries to filter out a great majority on porn sites. This also enables adults to be able to view all the filth they want to their hearts content.
Seriously, how do they choose who gets what first, a lottery? You know there are going to be countless squatters ready with scripts to register anything in the english language in the first three hours. What mechanisms are in place to ensure that names are not simply auctioned or held on to by the domain registrars (network solutions come to mind?) instead of the public.
Okay.. but that's for COUNTRIES. Certainly they should adjust TLD space to reflect countries. .com, .net, and .org, and leave it to the regional entities.
They should *really* just BANISH
Why not start un unofficial TLD?
All you need is a top dns that people can refer to.
The major problem is getting people to know that there is something out there, enough to be bothered with reconfiguring their DNS. This can be achieved by a few redirectors that would get pages from the new domain into the search engines.
OK, what about th IP numbers? does anyone have an idea.
-- look, cheese ahoy!
Unless there's some legislation forthcoming, this is going to be a litigation factory. Currently, trademark law (at least in the U.S.) permits companies who are engaged in widely different lines of business to have the same or similar names. If the established companies try to corner their names in every single domain space, even unrelated ones, there are going to be some ticked off folks. Just because I have salon.com, does that mean I get to have salon.banc if I don't actually have a bank? And what if I later establish a bank, does salon.banc have to hand it over to me? Just thinking about all this makes me appreciate why they've been haggling over this change for 5 years.
And it will be run by the same people who run the U.S. Patent Office.
> The article mentions about .ORG as being for charities. That really pisses me off. .ORG is for non-profit organisations.
:)
Like Slashdot.
It'll be a serious mistake (IMO) if they leave out the millions of people who make the 'Net go with their personal sites, etc. if something akin to the proposed .NOM or .PER (or whatever it was) doesn't make it to the final list.
.ORG isn't for a personal site. Nor is a .COM or a .NET.
And no,
Big mistake.
The people at name.space have been trying at this for a while. Same with AlterNIC, but they ruined their reputation a while back. None of it is free, but preventing domain squatters going nuts is a good thing.
The setting: inside a small appliance/tv/stereo shop. I'm killing time dinking around with their WebTV display model when a random employee walks over and takes the keyboard from me. .com or it won't take the address" .org"
"Hi. Would you like to see a demo?"
"Umm... okay." (i'm killing time, remember?)
[Now the random starts going through his spiel. i interrupt]
"could you go to slashdot.org for me?"
"slash dot dot ord?"
"no, dot o r g"
"oh. sure."
[types in (i kid you not) www./..org.com]
"no no, s l a s h d o t dot org"
"oh."
[types www.slashdot.ord.com]
"no, no dot com, just dot org"
"oh, but you have to put in the
"um. no, seriously. just
"no, it's not like internet explorer. you have to put in the _whole_ address"
"uh..."[glance at watch]"um.. i need to get going.."
If ICANN can't even figure out where it is in the geo-world, can anyone expect them to get it right in the cyber-world?
Or, as Firesign Theater said:
How can you be in two places at once when you're really nowhere at all?
http://www.networksolutions.com/cgi-bin/glossary/l ookup?term=.ORG
Actually, NSI doesn't get to set TLD policy. Can you cite an RFC to such a beast?
So I can make a rotating redirector to Nike, Kathy Lee Gifford, etc. :)
It wouldn't completely eliminate squatting, but it would eliminat the statistical value of bulk squatting (one $100K and ten $10K sales pay for 2000 unsold domains and $50K in legal fees, vs very few domains and pray that nobody sues and somebody buys).
www.* should also be banned for purchase. (i.e. www.computers should not be allowed, since it is pretty much like having .computers in the consumer space).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Allowing all domain names will turn DNS into the Internet Keywords system, with periods instead of spaces. Not saying this is necessarily bad, but there would have to be some good rules about usage. Like reserving top-level TLDs for everyone -- they may not exist until someone registers t hem, but 'ownership' would go only to second-level domains. This way, no one owns ".store", for isntance, but "walmart.store" could be owned by walmart. Allowing direct ownership of TLDs will create a lot of market-distorting mini-monopolies and trademark lawsuits.
Just imagine. Rather than hearing, "visit kay-eye-tee-ee-dot-com" on the radio, you'll hear, "internet keyword colorful dot kites".
Good idea, but what is to stop me from buying "apple.computers" or "America.online" or "General.motors" etc, and squatting them? I realize that the potential names would be almost limitless, however, many of the bigger names (and there are a lot) that would be the most logical, and thus most desireable to these companies, could still be squatted. Also, the fact that trademarked companies couldn't buy up all TLD variations of their names, could create potential for unscrupulous people to create "imitation" sites that could fool people into thinking that they are dealing with the real company. Imagine the personal information that could be gathered from people thinking that they are really on Microsoft's website, or any online business that would, for legitimate purposes, collect information like address, phone numbers, or credit card information. On my final rant, even though most major (mainstream) sites are .com, could you imagine the confusion if they go to a standardized system, ie: .sex, .tv, .geek, etc? Who would be responsable for catagorizing the content of the site? For example, is /. a .Linux site? Or a .news site? A .forum site? What really needs to happen is to find a way to end the practice of squatting domains. A domain police? Perhaps there could be a way to do this economicly. To sell a domain for a high price, it would most likely be sold in a popular place. (ebay, yahoo auctions, etc.) Time limits could be set on the time from a registration to actual publication of the site. Or perhaps an application that would describe the content of the site and require a contract to be signed stating that you will use the name for your personal and intended content and not resell the domain until or unless you sell it as part of an internet business, etc, otherwise it would be reclaimed by the registrars for further use. This is a very simplified idea, but it could be written to exclude loopholes that would prevent would be squatters from buying "freecomputer.com" (just a random example, I don't even know if its a valid domain) and selling it for $5000 by putting a picture of their pet cat on the site and calling it "published".
--I assume full responsibility for my actions, except the ones that are someone else's fault.
My question, I guess, comes down to whether or not .xxx will represent all the legitimite pornography on the internet by providing a classification based on domain name. :) What I mean is, will the ICANN domain names have any real merit in classification, whereas the .coms, .nets, and .orgs for gumbi are all owned by the same copyright holder.
from the ICANN website:
.booyeah or a .wazzup, but do 'free' orginazations have this kind of money to just throw away? this does not include fees that might come later for running a TLD and connecting to the rest of the network...
Resolved [00.48], the President is authorized to establish a non-refundable fee of USD
$50,000 for the submission of an application to become a sponsor or operator of a registry,
which the Board finds is a reasonable estimate of ICANN's costs likely to be associated with
receipt and evaluation of such applications, and follow-up.
does anyone not think this is a large fee for applying, enough to prevent a
Well, it's to be expected... ICANN has a situation where the division of sites by their tld uses two criteria. Geographic location and content-type. Obviously, location is going to lose because:
a) the net is supposed to be "without borders" (at least in public perception)
b) in the venture-capita-fueld ubercapitalist internet of today, web sites that don't appear to be us-based are regarded as either substandard or downright untrustworthy.
Gross generalizations? You bet. But like all gross generalizations, there's a damn big wad o' truth in there.
Lastly, this two-criteria division is just plain dumb. It's like shopping for a used car in the classifieds, only the classified people have said you can only describe your car by either colour or year. 1995 Ford or Blue Ford.
2 1337 4 u!
the AP story mentions allowing the election of 5 members by 'registered internet users'. what's a registered internet user ? if it's only corporations, not only do i not see how it will change anything, except open them up to more corporate rule, as if they're not already, but what about people? the internet is 'suppossed' to be a last resort for freedom of speech.
I thought the at-larges were supposed to be the counterbalance, the last bastions of hope for the average user to offset the awesome and frightening clout of the corporate droids. At the time people complained that at-large representation seemed to be merely a bone thrown by the powers-that-be, to defuse charges of corporate dominance.
Sadly, it seems such accusations were correct.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
These, every tinplate legislator is trying to apply regulations or taxes to "their" slice of the Internet. We see systems like Carnivore and the firewall in China trying to re-partition the Internet. We see juries and judges trying to apply local standards to a global medium. Anything that calls attention to the geographic location of a server works against the global nature of the system.
It's time for people to understand: cyberspace != real space! There is no good reason -- and about a zillion bad ones -- to replicate the geographical structure of the planet in the Net. Let it go, already.
For from establishing a US dominance, forcing everyone into .com, etc., would lower barriers. Of course, the whole system is mucked up anyway...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
I live in a town with a population of 4000, and I'm one of 2 people here that knows how to run a nameserver. So when I wanted a me.city.state.us, I had to set up the server, find a government representative willing to listen to a nerdie teenager, fill out a (paper) registration form, sign it in upteen places, and fax it. And this was after filling out the online form 5 times before they were satisfied with the information I'd provided. I actually went a little far in my description of the process. I had to stop at the 'find a government representative', because I had no idea who to talk to, and those I asked could have cared less. So I stuck to my .net domain, thank you very much.
Maybe its different in other counties, but its pretty worthless in the US.
--
In Canada, until just recently (its undergoing a change in management), .ca domains (and their provincial counterparts such as .on.ca) were given out for free to corporations, registered charities, et. al. who requested them and gave proof of existence basically.
- Michael T. Babcock (Yes, I blog)
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to ICANN's proposed TLD expansion for the following reasons:
TLD expansion is a shitty solution chasing after a near-nonexistent problem.
Steve Magruder, Technopolist
Steve Magruder, Metro Foodist
There should be a short time period where only the owner of yahoo.com can get yahoo.shop, but after that short period everything should be up for grabs.
There are a few ways this could be set up, The root servers could be set up so that all TLDs that start with A point to a certain one, B to another one, and so forth.
just an idea.
Josh Hinman
If you've ever tried to register a .us you know how shitty it is. they say NO corperations allowed. There isnt 1 central registrar to get it either. .us assigns the 50 states a .state.us type thing and thats it. Then the state assigns it to the cities and its the cities job deligate.. however with a small city i doubt that they have the know how to do that. Also inside of the .state there are .k12 for schools and other such domains. If i would like to get a .us domain to save .com space i would end up with something like: mbrez.brookfield.wi.us not as easy to remember than mbrez.com. If they opened up the .us space more for .com.us, .org.us, .net.us, .edu.us you would find a LOT more companies registrating in the .us space and you could almost give them away to companies to encourage them to use .us. I know i see a LOT of .co.uk and such but the only reason i ever use .us is for my school (www.elmbrook.k12.wi.us [not allowed to register elmbrook.edu either..and we wonder why NO ONE knows the web addy]).
nuff ranting
In Sweden you have to have a _nationally_ active company/organisation to aqcuire a .se domain. If you're a small shop in only one city you have to hide under a subdomain that is x.se where x is [a-z], ab ac bd. If you're a single person you can have a domain under pp.se.
IMHO a _good_ system (albeit to expensive, why pay the same for .pp.se and .com ?), but it only works on a national level. I really don't see the need for a international name-soup like the .com .org .net mess we have right now.
Of course an international system like this requires an international bureaucracy that doesn't (?) exist today, and it's questionalbe whether it ever will be. Because of this and the anarchic aura of the net I think that the vision of an ordered Internet where information is intuitively sorted in TLD/subdomains is, and will continue to be, just a vision.
return -ENOSIG;
Has anyone looked at the use of non-latin alphabets for domain names and TLDs? There are countries, such as China and Russia, that might prefer to use other alphabets in their domain names. How would you like it if all Internet domain names were written in Hindi?
Mea navis aericumbens anguillis abundat
I know it's a sore subject, but if they did .shop, why didn't they also do .xxx? Considering the publicity that the move to have .xxx created has been largely christian conservatives bent on eradicating porn from the internet, i don't see why just creating a .xxx tld and giving porn kings free reign over that tld is such a bad idea. atleast when you get spam that leads to a porn site, you'll know it's going to a porn site. and it will get rid of the misspelling problem and the whitehouse.com problem. Okay, maybe calling them a problem is a bad idea, but just as porn has its place in both movie rental stores and in book stores, can't we put porn on the internet in its own little nitch without pissing off too many people?
This isn't necessarily so. The problem with some of the existing TLD's is that they don't have any clear criteria for who will and won't be allowed to register a domain. Essentially anyone is allowed to register a .com address, so it's essential to preempt anyone else from getting desired domain names.
But if the FSF gets their wish to have a .gnu TLD, they can (and probably will be required to by ICANN) have a strict policy about what one has to do to qualify for a .gnu address. You might, for instance, be required to have a software project with the name you intend to register that meets FSF guidelines as free software. Thus there couldn't be an etoys.gnu unless someone had a free software program called etoys, and the fact that it was a software program rather than an online toy merchant would be adequate defense against trademark infringement. Similarly, the registrar for .sux might very well require that the owner of a copyright is forbidden from owning the corresponding .sux domain. It's perfectly reasonable in serving the purpose of the TLD.
The point is that the whole problem with the existing system is that there's a real shortage of top level domains. This wasn't a problem when the current system was established, because people weren't setting up personal internet addresses or a zillion different addresses for the same company with different names for each product. Now, though, there's serious collision between any person named Barbie who wants to set up a personal web site and Mattel Corporation, and you know who's going to win in that kind of a showdown.
If, though, there were a .mine or .per domain for personal web sites, and a .prod domain for product names, it would be obvious to anyone that barbie.mine was the personal web site of someone named barbie and barbie.prod was the site for Barbie dolls. Then all you'd need is a little bit of case law (or legislation) to show that these sites are sufficiently distinctive that a trademark holder doesn't have to sue to take down personal web sites and a lot of problems go away.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
So does anyone actually believe that the Indianapolis Bull Manure company is going to be able to register ibm.shop? Gimme a break. So long as the existing IP laws remain in effect, this is just another way for moneyed interests to muscle their way in to the endless profit of Network Solutions.
Proud member of the Weirdo-American community.
ibm.shit
Because I hoped to make a humorous point about for-profit businesses and .org, I went to mafia.org. Just a little place-keeper page there. Then I went to mafia.com and got taken to idrive.com. Now I'm wondering if iDrive is a wholely-owned subsidiary of the Legitimate Businessman's Club. :-)
It also looks as though they're not completely brain-dead on the topic of trademark infringement and/or cybersquatting. One of their criteria for evaluating the proposals of new domain registrars is their treament of the following:
IOW, if you want to register new TLDs, you'd better have a plan for how you're going to prevent trademark infringement and cybersquatting. It's too bad that they can't go back and apply those criteria retroactively to their existing registrars for .com, .net, and .org.
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Seriously, what's the f***ing point? Of course all the major companies will squat on all the new domains as well (think etoys.gnu, etoys.rob, etoys.sux and so on) because they don't have a choice if they want to preserve brand recognition. What we need instead is browser keyword recognition to replace the currently broken host.domain naming convention.
"I will take the Ring," he said, "though I do not know the way."
end user: I'm trying to get to the address 'books.shop', but it won't come up, are you down?
me: Not the last time I checked. What exact address are you putting in?
end user: www.books.shop.com
me: sound of head banging against well worn forehead dimple in desk.
Instead of a domain system, I think that there should be a regulated search engine, with categories, etc, much like yahoo, that people would register their sites in. The domain system has just failed. To get a domain these days, you have to come up with something pretty damn wacky and easily forgettable, so you might as well just give people the IP. Maybe with IPv6 we could just have permanent IPs in much the same way we have permanent domains. Then if we ever move then just have the IP routed differently. This might cause a major headache for routing tables, but maybe something could be worked out. Who knows... I really have no idea =)
I think we can see an example of this same system with phone numbers. Imagine everyone trying to have a unique name instead of a phone number. Sounds ridiculous, right? Everyone has a phone. Well, pretty soon everyone will have a website. But I guess wheels are very hard to stop or even turn once they get rolling. Nic
What I honestly don't understand is why they even bother to continue to expand the TLD space.
Think about it. Every dot.com that's any dot com is going to snatch up its corresponding dot.shop or dot.tel or dot.whatever and redirect it to the original site. Any dot.com that doesn't do this will be playing catchup for a seriously long time. Sure, domain squatters may make this difficult, but in the long run, the dot.coms and the dot.whatevers will all be the same anyway.
If someone snatches up something.shop and something.com wants to get the address from them, they'll pay to get it.
So what's the point? Business for domain name registrars, I guess.
I am serious, and don't call me Shirley.
What a wonderful idea! I mean, just think about it - I registered wap-dev.net and wap-dev.org a little while back, for a non-profit mailing list I run. Now imagine that I register these and wait a month for people who have a script that can place a bid 1 cent higher in price than I have offered for the names, in the LAST minute of the auction. So I lose my domain names, to someone who KNOWS that I want these two names. They now contact me and offer them for sale at 200% the price.
Now what do I do? Give the domain jumpers the money or register some new names that will also get jumped a month later?
Still sounds like a good idea?
... I thought not!
"Give the anarchist a cigarette"
A little planning goes a long way...
And we thought the rush for the dotcoms was bad... Now that everyone is more aware of the potential worth of domain names the mad rush to grab up names is going to be overwhelming. I'm interested to see exactly how the fair/legal way to allow registration of then new TLDs is going to proceed.
.com, .net and .org allow a free for all.
We already have a bunch of big brokers calling every week asking when they can start to "pre-register" names from the new TLDs. This is absolutely insane if you ask me. I sure hope ICANN and the accredited registrars can work out a good plan otherwise all heck is going to break loose.
One way to possibly handle this is only allow registrants of a particular name the ability to register the same name in the new TLDs and then for unregistered names in the
That way we would stop, Joe Blow from registering yahoo.shop but if he comes up with a new domain like joeblowiscool.com he can register whatever he likes.
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
NPS Internet Solutions, LLC
www.npsis.com
Nathaniel P. Wilkerson
www.haidacarver.com
Isn't this the opposite of what we had just heard from Esther Dyson, who basically had said the ICANN was in the process of determining the process of applying for a new TLD? I forget where the article was published; can anybody help out with a link?
Free music from Jack Merlot.
This is real. There is a French lingere company that made some underwear called "microsoft" (small m). Microsoft (big M) was unhappy, but allowed them to use the name with a small m. I don't have a reference off hand, though..
cpeterso
Really? There have to have been new countries since then... not that I can think of any offhand, but aren't names and borders changing annually?
2 1337 4 u!
The ICANN site has now been updated. You can get the preliminary report of their little chat-party in Yokohama here.
I strongly believe that trying to be clever is detrimental to your health. -- Linus Torvalds
New TLD's will be useless, until, and unless, ICANN enforce some restirctions on who gets what domain names.
.net and .org too!", anyone?) will contiue.
It started with how the domain names are adiminsted, (ie, for profit), which ment thaqt it was advantageous for the administrater (NSI) to sell as many as possable. This _must_ change, else the whole squatting, and registering of multiple domains ("Click here to register
ICANN, get some real rules on who gets what in there, else all you've done is up the registrars profits.
Unless, of course, that _was_ the whole idea?
That these will include .shop, .tel and .news are only examples that ZDNet takes out of thin air. Now, you should be able to guess that from ZDNet's own words:
So, it is not clear that .shop, .tel and .news will be on the list. And, the At Large Directors who are going to be elected will probably be involved.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Wow, after a couple years of waiting, we finally get an announcement that there will be new TLD's sometime soon. Furthermore, they will separately convene to decide which ones they will add, then hopefully get it done by the end of the year sometime. Gee, I can hardly contain my excitement.
I registered my hate for Jon Katz
The article mentions about .ORG as being for charities. .ORG is for non-profit organisations. I am part of a community which uses .org address, and we are definately NOT a charity. .net and .org sites than .com's , but its not our oh-so-great-superiority complex that i am talkign about.)
.org, they barely register what it means, heck it wouldnt suprise me if people started wondering ".net? what the hell is that?! arent all internet addresses ending with .com?". SO i wonder, what will the effect be of those TLD's? Will people recognise them? Or will big companies say "the average Jon Doh only knows dotcom, we dont want to confuse his little brain with .shop or .tel".
.org is ONLY for charities.
That really pisses me off.
What worries me is that more and more people are becomming clueless as to even the existance of non-dotcom addresses. Think about it, all the adds you see, all the advertising you are being pounded with, all the hype in the media, its all about the dotcom. How many dotnets or dotorgs are famous? (yes, yes, i know, people in the know-how visit more
So the thing is, when people see
Oh damn, i was only supposed to rant about how the writer of the zdnet article is a clueless dork for thinking that
Thank you for skipping through my post,
;)
The silly thing is that every major corporation will find out who has the new TLDs and then go out and register under each of them ASAP. ibm.sex and microsoft.shop will then be owned by guess who.
.com domains registered and about 20% of those will register with any new TLD that becomes available.
.com and .net domains you ain't seen nothing yet. Expect people to register huge piles of .sex domains to keap them from being "abused". I.e. whithouse.sex probably won't go the way of whithouse.sex even though it should :)
.sex do you have to include *only* nude pictures, interviews etc... of people you actually had sex with or can you be more general in your approach ?
The people biding for the rights to administer these new TLDs knew this from the beginning and it's why they push so hard for it. a cope Million
If you thought you saw cibersqauting and abuse with
So OSM are you gona register natalee.sex ?
BTW : If you register your own name under
--= Isn't it surprising how badly I spell ?