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)."
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
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
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 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.
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:
--
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.
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.
> 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
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!
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.
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.
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
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