Slashdot Mirror
The Battle for .Web
Tripp Lilley writes "At FOCI: Friends Of a Competitive Internet, we've sent out this letter to a lot of folks interested in the battle for the .Web TLD in the ICANN New TLD Program. While ICANN's Criteria for Assessing TLD Proposals call for, among other things, "the enhancement of competition for registration services" and "enhance[ment] [of] the diversity of the DNS and of registration services generally", over one third of the proposals on the table come from a fascinatingly intertwined group of existing registries and registrars, including NSI, CORE, and Melbourne IT. (Oh, and before anyone flames me for not disclosing my affiliations, read the full disclosure that's been posted on the site and attached to the letter since we began)."
not to troll my own troll or anything, but this is just such fucking SHIT that i have to keep ranting.
.us domain were used properly, then compaq.com would actually be compaq.com.us, which is a very clear indication of which compaq you are speaking, as well as a singular line of defense in the IP issue - within the united states, a trademark is held on the name 'compaq,' and no one else should use that domain.
.com heirarchy was allowed.
the enforcement of IP laws on international, or, in the case of the internent, non-national, namespace is about to make me start shooting people. the root of the whole issue is, as i spouted earlier, a poorly thought out heirarchy in which geography is discounted in favor of a monopoly-enhancing scheme of artifically valuated TLDs.
for instance, if the
however, as it is monentarily advantageous for NSI, et al to foster competition for and the purchase of multiple TLDs per trademark, the
was it stupidity or intentional misuse? who cares! it's fucking stupid, and it exists.
the fact that it happened, however, will end up hurting the reigstrars in the long run. as no one will bother to go back and Do The Right Thing, the namespace will simply continue to be expanded to make room for all the wanna-be monopolists, as well as at the whim of those with enough money to make it happen. this will continue unchecked until the namespace is so polluted and unusable that single-word TLDs will be doled out to anyone who wants, them, stupid, non-relevant nationalist IP laws will rule the day, and finding any-fucking-thing using any sort of common sense will be un-possible.
welcome to your future internet, losers.
If anything we need fewer TLDs. Whack the 3 letter TLDs for one and FORCE the CCTLDs to be used. What about "global" or "international" entities? Screw 'em. Let them do what they do with their phone numbers and postal address... have many local ones in local countries. No one is so important as to deserve some "outside the national realm" TLD. Even NATO is in Brussels and the UN is in New York.
We need a coordinated alternate DNS now, before the current system completely falls to pot, and hook a few of the big providers into using it too (like AOL, MCI, Sprint, etc.).
Has anyone considered a P2P version of DNS? It would take the power out of the hands of centralized authority. Each entity in the web would have it's own lookup table associating names with numbers. The table would be derived from the tables of it's neighbors. Majority and precedent would rule. This has probably been thought up a million times, ya.
Why would anyone want .web other then for useless capitalizing of the net? we already have .com for the comercialist fuckers (who dirtied up the web), as a cynical economist, I cant blame them, but as a geek, I am in sorrow.
http://siokaos.org/
In the words of one of theconference
The workshop [I organized] was designed to encourage programmers, systems architects, and usability experts to produce software which directly enhanced civil liberties. One proposal of mine, in particular, has garnered a lot of interest -- specifically, a project to replace the domain name system because of its current poor political properties, which encourage land-grabs, coercion, lawsuits, and other antisocial behavior. The replacement suggests, among other things, that a system in which all names are not guaranteed unique until further disambiguated might solve some of these problems, without (one hopes) insurmountable technical or sociologic problems taking their place.
It wouldn't necessarily be redundant if it contained hosts and domains that aren't just on the web, but about the web. Meta-web sites. Web sites, ftp servers, email lists, etc that are dedicated to supporting/selling web servers and web browsers might belong there.
But actually, yes, it sounds like a dumb idea to me too.
---
As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
What else do you use tld's for?
Email? again, a redundant naming; name@domain.web doesn't tell me much; unless it is necessary to distinguish 'web' from 'internet', say.
Websites: redundant as the original poster said.
FTP sites? that's what the ftp.name.tld is for.
Intranets? if it's "intra", then it isn't "web", really, it seems.
What else? Did I miss anything.
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
The people who "registered" these common business names with IOD are being scammed.
Period.
Nuts.
These suckers are being scammed.
They're being led to believe that, at some level, they have some possessory right over these international business names, as domain names in the .web tld.
Again, nuts.
I think that would be called fraud, in some circles.
And note that this from IOD's FAQ admits that you're not getting *anything* that really works anywhere in the current real world:
"I cannot see .WEB(TM) names from my browser. What's wrong?"
"The simple answer is that the Internet's root servers, the domain name servers that essentially "run the Internet" have not had Image Online Design's .WEB(TM) added to them at this time. In our understanding with IANA, we were to have been entered in October of 1996. Image Online Design continues to maintain that the completion of the ongoing process with the U.S. Government and ICANN should begin with the addition of Image Online Design's .WEB(TM) registry to the root servers."
Right. Real Soon Now.
"Will people be able to send me E-Mail at my .WEB(TM) address?"
"The same problem with the root servers with regards to browsers exists for e-mail, and all other Internet services. This is the problem we are trying to address at this time."
Nuts, third time.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Hey, this could be an interesting busines strategy for cruise lines and the like that own their own islands. Just get a top level domain registered for you island (say Sexopia or Moviegaria or something) and sell off your tld to the highest bidder.
If that isn't enough, you might even be able to change the name of your country and get ANOTHER tld to sell off. Or maybe I'm just nuts.
I read the internet for the articles.
I run five domains that don't have any web services attached to them, two others that have websites that merely describe what the "real" services of the sites are. All seven are lively, useful, running domains.
The internet does not equal the web, and very quickly (IE, Konqueror), a browser is not equaling an internet tool, either.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
I think there is significant confusion out there regarding what the TDL is supposed to be about. The implication of a .web address would be that a web site lives there. This is completely inconsistant with the way things are now and even redundant in the current paradigm. Web sites (and other services ie. ftp, gopher, etc) are generally indicated by the machine name.
.web part had nothing to do with the services of that particular address. (Should I have a www.site.web and ftp.site.ftp and mud.site.mud?)
.com first, then .org then .net.
The only way it makes sense to me is if the .web TLD is reserved for company's involved in the web specifically. If there are no rules about how the TLDs will be distributed, then they are completely pointless and just create more names that you have to try before you find the one you really want.
For example, www.site.web would be redundant unless the
So, it seems to me that the TLD HAS to be tied to the type of entity that owns the domain name. Obviously, company, organization, and what? Up until now it's been sorta random. Why not SlashDot.com? It is a company isn't it? I don't know about most of you, but if I'm looking for a particular site/group/company, I always try
This has been raised before, but again, why do we need TLDs?
.org-ers out there, but I bet you'd rather have .com)
They have become mostly meaningless. While ".com" should mean ".company", what it really means is ".lucky-enough-to-get-name-first" and ".org" should be ".non-profit-organization", it really means ".loser-too-late-for-the-party" or ".org.com" to the layman (no offense to
Why not just allow names to include letters a-z, dashes '-', underscores '_', pipes '|', periods '.' and maybe a few other characters.
Then a person can have
http://this-is.my_name.for_using||the.w.e.b
Or, more sensibly, using the Compaq example:
www.compaq.com
compaq.com
compaq.company
compaq.germany
compaq.de
compaq.co.de
And so forth. So why can't this be done? Is it a political/economic issue, or is it a technical problem for resolving name->IP# ?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
You belong in the .org TLD. So do I. That's why my computer is bound to refrag.dyndns.org. .alt was a suggestion from a fellow Slashdotter and I think it would be great. A TLD where copyrights had no influence and every domain name was FCFS.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
- You cannot own a
.com domain with the same name
- Otherwise, first come first served
BTW, I wonder how many times Chrysler has tried to sue the owners of www.dodge.com?I'm a leaf on the wind. Watch how I soar.
This is similar to the commercial I hear all the time for some Microsoft Certified learning institute. They always harp about how the TLD in their domain name is not .com but .ms. I wonder how many people are stupid enough to believe that Microsoft has its own TLD.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
Even though it's been diluted, .org is a non-profit *organization*, implying more than one person. And again, as others have pointed out, .org's been a trademark warzone too. I didn't mention, but should be included, is that .web or .alt should be able to ignore trademarks problems -- first come first served.
"Pinky, you've left the lens cap of your mind on again." - P&TB
"I can see my house from here!" - ST:
--
The shareholder is always right.
They most certainly are indicators of a thriving, healthy economy. When the titans do battle, it means that they're faced with real competition from each other, which, in turn, makes it possible for mere mortals to find niches, do business, and possibly become, themselves, titans.
When it turns sour is when there are no titans slugging it out, but just one titan, making all of the rules. Past examples include United States Steel Corporation, J.P. Morgan's railroad empire, and AT&T's monopoly over the telephone system. These are all examples of the monopolies Woodrow Wilson railed against.
Some people seem to be missing the point of FOCI, and for that, I must take responsibility, as the primary author of the letter, the petition, and most of the content of the site.
The point is competition. The point is that, of the proposals on the table at ICANN, over half are related to either Afilias or Melbourne IT. The point is not whether .web is or isn't a good idea, or whether TLDs or the DNS are or are not good ideas. The point is that, given a world that is this way (which is currently is), can we keep competition alive long enough to make real change?
If Afilias and Melbourne IT are allowed to dominate the DNS any more than they already do, all the Karl Auerbachs in the world won't do us any good.
I'm not saying that Image Online Design are heroes. I'm saying that they represent competition to Afilias and Melbourne IT, and for that, you should consider supporting their bid.
And, as I said in the letter:
So I fully agree with you that people should do research and make up their own minds. There's plenty of public record of the entire history of .web. Furthermore, there's a lively discussion in the ICANN comments area, in which plenty of skeptics, critics, or outright IOD detractors are posting alternative viewpoints. Of course, not all of them are using their names, but that's the 'net for ya'.
Please, though, don't try to make it out like John Mitchell or I are hiding anything. We've made our affiliations clear from the first moment. When we changed the wording of the petition after realizing what Melbourne IT was up to, we mailed all of the existing signatories to let them choose whether or not to apply their signature to the new wording, or let it stand with the old.
We, FOCI, have worked very hard to be precisely the sort of effort on behalf of a company that we'd like to see more of. We're not trying to snow you, or convince you that we don't have, ultimately, capitalist interests at heart. We're trying to be straight with you, and let you decide what is important to a Competitive Internet.
--
Americans are bred for stupidity.
Your just gonna register for all the TLD's that are applicable to your company and sue based on trademarks. What's wrong with sticking with .com, .net, and .org?
.net and plural domains.
You guys own slashdot.com just so no one else can right? That's the same reason my company owns its
I'm all for ".dot" though... and maybe we could make mozilla translate and resolve "/..." properly.
everyone just get the fuck over TLDs already and get on with your lives. in five years, TLDs will be as ubiquitous as snot. you'll just go to 'compaq', not compaq.com or any of that other dumb, poorly implemented and
not-at-all-thought-out heirachcal nonsense.
Ahh but what about other names.
What if I want to go to say different groups who have the same ideas. Say a nonprofit organization has a
Also what about international sites. Suppose I want to deal with the german division of compaq or maybe the british or how about sony's japanese division? That's where you idea fails.
Respond to s
I think it's a good idea, and a good proposal. I like te idea because it's more than just the same old domains. I would really like to have a ".obey" TLD. I think it would be great, it could be used for all the people who obey the corporations and the government, or be used to make fun of them. I also like the ".not" idea, very much, good stuff.
"Conformity is the jailer of freedom and the enemy of growth." John F. Kennedy
apparently there haven't been any submissions for .not to ICANN (not that anme, anyway). Any lawyers out there want to take up the charge?
IANAL, but I think the reason you saw no such submissions is it costs $50,000 to file for a TLD.
--- Will in Seattle - What are you doing to fight the War?
IOD has to recognize that there is no battle for '.web' specifically. Everyone interested in operating new TLDs is being restrained by NSI, ICANN, and the DOC. IOD was running around for years claiming to 'own' the .web TLD. Well, that didn't work out.. I have nothing against them, but I'm glad that they failed in their '.web' trademark claim. Private companies owning TLDs as private property and as trademarks is not right for the internet and its users.
.com, .org, and .net right now is a system where NSI is the central registry. ICANN granted some 100 companies the rights to talk to NSI's registry to add, modify, renew, etc. new domains into the (com|org|net) registries using a protocol called RRP (registry-registrar protocol).
.web TLD any more than I believe that IOD should. We definately need a .web TLD.. We also need hundreds of others. I'm surprised that the letter has several paragraphs about IOD's 4-year testbed '.web' registry, but no mention of Name.Space, which
.web mean?) three letter TLDs when the real prize is true expressive domain names that can actually be used to form meaningful phrases and expressions! Doesn't anyone remember expression!!
A better system is a shared registry. What we have for
As the FOCI/IOD letter points out, NSI is still a monopoly registry, charging everyone from Opensrs.org to Register.com to Bulk Register.com a fee of $6 per domain. ICANN has saved NSI a fortune on marketing.
I don't believe that Conspiritas^WAffilias should be exclusively running the
has been running a registry of hundreds of new toplevel domains for just as long!!
Why do we want to bicker and argue about single meaningless (what does
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
"The internet does not equal the web"
But ".web" clearly means "web" and not "non-web internet".
Out of curiosity (being a non-guru web user), what do you do with domains that aren't web associated, and how would ".web" help describe their use/purpose?
The suggestion of ".web" = ".meta-web-services" makes sense, but isn't that what ".net" was for?
-----
D. Fischer
ShoutingMan.com
A place where trademark lawsuits do not apply, where there are no "dispute policies", where all *.alt domain names are first come first serve, eternal and unchallengable (other than for non-payment), and further that as a condition of registering OR RENEWING a domain in any TLD heirarchy, that registrants agree that *.alt is a free-from-domain-lawsuit zone. That way as domains renew, everyone agrees to alt's status just like they stick us with new ICANN dispute policies now.
Every city, no matter how orderly and clean, needs a DUMP and similarly DNS needs .alt to store all the garbage. Why should you support a domain name wasteland? Simple. If you don't, the crap doesn't go away, it seeps into the other TLD heirarchies.
Apparently the first got mangled by the Preview routine. What's displayed in the "Comment" area got changed when it was redisplayed. Sigh...
Dont know why im even bothering to reply but the sound is created by expelling air through their voicebox in a manner that causes the vocal cords to resonate, normal speech uses several other things to shape the sound, the tongue, the teeth the hard and soft pallet etc., whereas the tuvalans create the entire sound in their throat, hence throat singing
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
What are the rules for random.au? notadotcom.au?
It's not entirely clear whether such domain names are allowed or not, although a cursory glance actually suggests that you can't -- which would be seem pretty fscked up, to me.
--Matthew
As the CTO of Image Online Design, I have to question the above Anonymous post. Frankly, we have no "former employees" of the registry. If you're a former employee, please identify yourself. I have no idea what "80s TLD proposal that failed" you're talking about - the idea for the .Web registry was completely my own.
In short, the post is a forgery.
I strongly encourage research. I just as strongly encourage anonymous detractors who post obvious falsehoods to piss off.
Christopher Ambler
CTO, Image Online Design, Inc.
A lot of trademark-related lawsuits have qualified domain name holders as "cybersquatters" for not having a "web site" for that domain, and many lawyers base their case on those mere facts.
I've owned domains to simply use them for my nameservers because they were short and easy to type and remember, and also made snazzy email addresses for me and my friends, helped keep in touch easier but I never cared about having a www.wuteverdomain.com.
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
Even if you don't like big corporate money-sucking NSI, it's difficult to feel fuzzy about wanna-be big corporate money-sucking IOD.
Woops, I stand corrected.
Slashdot: Proof that a million monkeys at a million typewriters can create a masterpiece
mod this up, it's very informative
Extraordinary Vacations. Exceptional Prices
I'm with you 100% on the idea of a TLD expressly for the excercise of Fair Use rights.
I propose that .FU would be the perfect name for this new TLD.
Edith Keeler Must Die
Are there any Tuvalan mp3 files on Napster? Seriously...
You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
> country/state codes?
Some online companies are international. It's an ego thing and marketing - as who wants to label themselves local when you could be international?
Although, some businesses are just international. You wouldn't have a http://www.amazon.com.australia.south.sydney.north .14.oakley.street now would you? No, as it'd be too specific.
The same applies.
--Giving to trolls for the benefit of us all
What really worries me is that apparently the new TLD "owners" are going to be free to act as censors. As reported in the most recent Newsweek, the frontrunner in applications for a new ".kids" TLD says they're going to reject any sites that don't meet societal norms for children. Since a TLD is a global resource, this seems to beg the question of whose norms they're talking about. Are we ready for a ".god" TLD owned and censored by Christian fundamentalists? We've got PICS for proecting kids from porn, so why do we need to add new censorship mechanisms to the web?
Find free books.
I've been using the ORSC root system for at least a year and as a consequence my machines can resolve names in IOD's .web. In fact I have cavebear.web registered. (Of course, you'll only be able to use that in a URL if you are also using a root that uses the ORSC root and aren't going through some ISP's not-very-transparent web cache that unnecessarily re-resolves DNS names.)
There were some initial technical problems at the IOD end getting the zone file updates to work smoothly, but everything seems fine now.
And I've never had any failures on the part of the ORSC root.
I can just see it now...
keyword: the Borg is watching you
============================================
You rush a Miracle Man, you get rotten miracles - Miracle Max, TPB
Not really. There are several companies that would still want domain names secured for their products. I seem to recall some small nation getting the .TV domain, and immediately begin to start selling space to the networks.
--
Atomic batteries to power! Turbines to speed!
Isn't the point now moot since we now are blessed with "internet keywords"?
The controlling parties know that by introduction of a schema like this, they would lose their stranglehold on the pay for TLD services, regisrtation etc, and in the end the power they hold would be lost, so woulld the profits. The massive amount of stonewalling to keep the few TLD's out there is really getting old.
Open 'em up, lose the regulation and force the TLD controllers to change their business model. Now it's a striking similarity to the US area code system running only a dozen or so area codes.
I want "dot" and "dash" TLDs, enabling clever morse-code domains.
i.e. dash.dotdashdot.dot or dot.dashdot.dash
One of the many things I hate. thingsihate.org
troll? redundant maybe, but I didn't see the other post when I posted. I thought I was just answering the question.
-------------------- the list is long. dirac angestung gesept
---
pack
1337
God knows where ICANN came up with that figure..
No doubt the fee was designed to try and exclude
small businesses and entrepreneurs from the domain
game and to raise over $2million for their near-vacuous coffers.
With this $50,000 application fee,
ICANN has assured that no non-profit or
other cost-sensitive operation would even
apply, and has cleared the path somewhat for
their giant Telco and TM buddies to hijack the
whole 'new' system.
-- The Funk, The Whole Funk, And Nothing But The Funk
I actually like this 'restriction', although it doesn't go quite far enough. For any new 'TLD' to be affective, you need to restrict the allocation of them. If we're running out of TLD's because the Coca-Cola company has register hundreds of permutations of their name, adding a new TLD will only force them to register the .web permutations as well.
.com.
.web.
.net.
.org.
.gov unless your a government, or a .mil unless you're military.
You need to restrict them to registering within a single TLD.
If you're a for-profit company, you can get
If you're a web-portal, you can get
If your a network provider, you can get
If you're not-for-profit, you can get
Just like you can't get a
-- You can't idiot-proof anything, because they're always coming out with better idiots.
Of all the mooted new TLDs, I always thought .web was the worst. I mean, you're already connecting to port 80, and there's that ubiquitous www. prefix, so .web is totally redundant and uninformative.
B*llsh*t...
Here's the sort of thing Image Online Design aka webtld.com has really been doing, while it's been hiding under the smokescreen of this pap: "Image Online Design...continues to work to ensure that these policies and procedures are created fairly and openly, and will be pleased to work within the framework if they are created such..."
These noble, philanthropic, high-minded folks have been pandering to squatters, just like the scumbags.
And taking money, of course!
"pepsi.web" registration information.
Owner: Mitch Wolf
Email: mwolf@tacobell.web
Steno-Wolf Associates
PO Box 12959
San Luis Obispo
CA, 93406
US
"cocacola.web" registration information.
Owner: Antonione Paupério
Email: antonione@uol.com.br
Rua Pequetita 179, 12 andar
São Paulo
São Paulo, 04552-060
BR
"ford.web" registration information.
Owner: omer gokalp
Email: omerasir@mail.com
ýnonu cad saray sk 17 mahmutbey
ýstanbul
ýstanbul, 34550
TR
"sony.web" registration information.
Owner: Ray Solone
Email: Ray_Solone@asinet.com
3100 Fite Circle
Sacramento
CA, 95827
US
"toshiba.web" registration information.
Owner: C. Wiersma / S. Kraus
Email: cwiersma@home.com
906 Yates St.
Victoria
B.C., V8V 3M2
CA
"microsoft.web" registration information.
Owner: Greg and Brent Hather
Email: rhather@aol.com
3675 Sequoia Drive
San Luis Obispo
CA, 93401
US
Do you know how fast all these suckers are gonna get blown out of the water by hordes and hordes of lawyers once this scam get out?
And I love this:
"As stated in the registration section of this web site, if you are at all hesitant to register due to the situation, please wait for a resolution before doing so."
Hesitant? Well P.T. Barnum said something about a sucker being born every minute. I guess this is continuing proof.
t_t_b
--
I think not; therefore I ain't®
I'm on PJ's "enemies" list! Are you?
Given that all web sites are ...well, web sites, isn't it redundant to want to call them slashdot.web? Am I missing the point? That TLD still doesn't say anything about the nature of that site -- is it porn, or educational, or commercial? (mmmmm, educational commercial porn....)
www.HearMySoulSpeak.com
How does one stop site jacking like Adobe recently suffered if there is no lawsuits possible?
Not trying to be flamebait, just wondering how you'd handle somebody that jacks other's domains.
You need to restrict them to registering within a single TLD.
If you're a for-profit company, you can get .com.
If you're a web-portal, you can get .web.
If your a network provider, you can get .net.
What happens if you are a for-profit, web-portal and network provider (e.g. Altavista)?
Rather, I expect that all the present holders of domains with any value - real or presumed - will swoop in to claim the corresponding domain in the new TLDs, and if they can't get it in the initial rush they will get it through litigation. So just what exactly will be left ?
That's why the only system that seems to make sense is an arbitrary three letter TLD - is a company going to register .aaa, .bbb, .zzz and so on? I don't think so (though some might try).
.com .org and .net they'd probably just go back to registering .com only.
With an open number, instead of registering
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Nope, you can't - but what's so bad about that? Everything fits nicely into the existing subdomains (COM, ORG, NET, EDU, GOV, ASN, ID), and I don't see the advantage that would come from allowing registration directly under .au. Unless your nick is MegaTau and you want to arrive on irc as meg@t.au - but "vanity domains" aren't what .au's for.
This seems like a stupid TLD. Why would anyone want it? The computers attached to that TLD will hopefully do more than host Websites. They'll support other Internet functionalities such as FTP, IRC, whatever...
It just seems like a pointless TLD. Something only the stupidest of PHBs will want.
Refrag
I have a website. It's about Macs.
You are not allowed to register more than one domain per business in the com.au namespace. Of course this does not stop the common practice of going down to the Dept of Fair Trading and registering another business name to get an extra domain.
> The
Oh! God DAMN I hate the morons who came up with whatever.com.au and all the other stupid .com.TLDs. I keep getting mis-directed internal e-mail from an Australian health care company when the morons working at it forget to put the .au on the end of .com.au, and so it comes to our company which has the actual .com domain name.
I'm considering starting a collection of Australian Citizen Health records, and then auctioning it all off :)
Hey, what's that postal rule? If you didn't ask for it and you get it, it's yours?!
.BIG FAT FUCKING DEAL
everyone just get the fuck over TLDs already and get on with your lives. in five years, TLDs will be as ubiquitous as snot. you'll just go to 'compaq', not compaq.com or any of that other dumb, poorly implemented and not-at-all-thought-out heirachcal nonsense.
I'd be interested in hearing more about this ".au is global" if it's actually true - and I doubt it. http://www.melbou rne it.com.au/ver2/html/services/indexinww.htm states:
This is common knowledge inMelbourne IT's apparantly also into the .com registration business, so perhaps this is where they got confused.
Reading the .web proposal application (posted here on ICANN, I see there's a bit about watching out for copyright infringement, etc..... What I would love to see is a sort of a ".not" TLD, where copyright laws simply don't apply. A pipe dream, to be sure, but it would nice to be a place where the government would guarantee the right to parody, mock, implicate, and point out the faults of various corporations, etc. Insure our "fair use" policies, essentially. And, hey, apparently there haven't been any submissions for .not to ICANN (not that anme, anyway). Any lawyers out there want to take up the charge?
AHHHHHHH! I'm burning with goodness again!
- Reakk, Sluggy Freelance
I smell trouble afoot.
Don't you mean: Something's afoot at the Circle K? -Bill & Ted
Tuvalu is a small island in the Pacific.
Tuva (throat singers) is a small region in Siberia.
No relation.
What we really need is a .NUL domain that would be a non-searchable region of the web. And the public should be able to vote websites into it, a la Slashdot moderation. Offhand, I can think of one outfit that'd be there before sundown....
Excellent point. The idea of tying a TLD to a specific protocol is stupid. TLDs should represent broad concepts (like .com, .org, .net, .gov, .mil, .edu, etc.) not anything specific that is likely change or become obsolete in the short-term or medium-term future.
.com, .org, and .net just for the heck of it. What's to prevent this from happening if there are 10 or even 20 more TLDs?
.com TLD gets purchased by another company), but would discourage the practice by making it unprofitable for many to participate in it.
Actually, I'd say that the whole business of adding TLDs just for the sake of adding TLDs is just stupid. It won't solve the problem of people buying up gobs and gobs of "good" names and then trying to re-sell them at a profit. Heck, there are enough people who _now_ register the same name in
What we need is more common sense and some way of discouraging this sort of stupid behavior. Maybe something like this: don't change the fees for registering names (maybe even lower them), but charge $5000 (or something else like that) to transfer a name to another party. This would still allow transfers (for example, if a company that owns a
A web site is just one service that a company can provide, so what do you get by registering a whatever.web address that you don't already have with your usual www.whatever.com? It seems like it would only cause more confusion in the market place, leading to more lawsuits and heavy-handed domain ownership policies.
In the words of one of the conference
The workshop [I organized] was designed to encourage programmers, systems architects, and usability experts to produce software which directly enhanced civil liberties. One proposal of mine, in particular, has garnered a lot of interest -- specifically, a project to replace the domain name system because of its current poor political properties, which encourage land-grabs, coercion, lawsuits, and other antisocial behavior. The replacement suggests, among other things, that a system in which all names are not guaranteed unique until further disambiguated might solve some of these problems, without (one hopes) insurmountable technical or sociologic problems taking their place.
Introducing more TLD's just means companies have to register every other TLD so nobody else does. When the Internet blows up and we have to start it over, we should make second-level domains unique. If you get slashdot.org, nobody can get slashdot.whatever.
I don't know about u guys, but not enough people realize what kind of menace NSI is to the net. Ever hear of priority service? People who are "Internic" get screwed with crusty templates that aren't reliable because u didn't pay the extra parking fee and get hosted as worldnic, u get charged for 299 usd if you want to transfer ownership of a domain in a reasonable amount of time, or do it the standard way and wait with the other 5000 people who've sent in a notarized fax. Then there is the domain thats been deactivated or expired for over a year, who ever gets to renew it? I'm sure those deleters don't get paid enough. And the most hopeless part is that 2/3's of the domains are registered with them.
BTW, I don't have kids, but couldn't the youngster simply CTRL-ALT-DEL their windows box to bring up the running apps and then shut down Net-Nanny or any other filter? Could this stop the library filtering we are soon to see here in the US
Read my plan to save the Bengals
Just easier to remember I guess.
Respond to s
.web and .wap are dumb. Just imagine how dumb you'd feel now if you registered a .wais or .gopher address 5 years ago. TLDs need to be more permanent than the protocols, http (and hence, the "web") could be replaced by a better protocol at any time, and WAP is already passe. I suppose these TLDs would be OK for a secondary URL, but no one should rely on them for their primary domain names.