Slashdot Mirror
.museum TLDs are Live
GuNgA-DiN writes: "Several sites in .museum have now gone live: you can check out met.art.museum, stockholm.music.museum, and minnesota.science.museum, for instance. You can navigate the hierarchical structure of this TLD via index.museum, or go directly to an index page for a particular second level domain by going to that domain, e.g., art.museum.
Since the .museum TLD is still in its experimental phase, these domains haven't been delegated to their registrants yet, but resolve as CNAME records in the TLD root, pointing at the other domains each site already has. Thus, .museum addresses can currently only be used as additional addresses for sites that already have some other domain. MX records haven't yet been set up, so email to these domains won't yet work."
.mus should have been the extension of choice.
How many different extensions are we going to have? How many people are going to actually use them?
.com name. Forget about .biz, or .info, or .museum, or .rabid_attack_wombles.
I think that the 'dot com' culture is too firmly entrenched. Businesses are always going to want to try and get a
Taffyd.
I'm still struggling to see why anyone thinks Museums are worthy of their own TLD. It makes sense to have TLDs for areas of the net/web that can be expected to contain massively varying content (commercial, organisations, countries etc) but museums??
:)
How many times have you actually wanted to find the website for a museum and not been able to do so using any search engine?
The only people NOT capable of using a search engine to find a website aren't going to think "oh, maybe i should try http://index.museum/". I wonder if there is really an alteria motive by the companies who are bidding to run these new TLDs as some way of getting a foot in the door and controlling a bit of the web... But maybe I'm just cynical
It is another attempt to impose power structures from the "real world" onto the net. When this idea was first discussed, many asked if the led museum would be included. I'm unsurprised to see that it's not. This is an attempt to draw a line in the sand between the 'respectable' who deserve the title of museum (the narrow closed circuit of fundraising dinners and inherited wealth) and the unwashed masses who might try to extend the idea of museum to something internet-centric.
The fact that this is implemented only as CNAMEs emphasizes that ICANN has polluted the top level namespace with sheer gimmickry. These bastions of privilege have no intention of surrendering their existing domains.
Instead of an orderly development of tld space based on compact representation for the most common areas, we are getting an expression of privilege and influence extended into the net. The nobles are riding across the peasant's fields, hunting the fox.
The real tragedy is that we have been unable to shake off ICANN. This utterly corrupt, elitist and short-sighted clique has no feeling for the natural flavor and development of the net. And yet the only thing which empowers ICANN is that we use the root name servers they recommend. Every attempt to build an alternate root seems to have fizzled, because the center of gravity remains with ICANN.
Until we find a way to migrate from ICANN-dependence, we can expect a continuing series of insults and abuses from them.
I think it would be spiffy if I could find the nearest Radio Shack around (if, say, I were new to my area) with a system like this. I could try radioshack.dallas.tx.us.com, and instantly see a site on the locations in Dallas. But--What if there were no Radio Shacks in Dallas? Ya don't suppose I could hit radioshack.index.tx.us.com, and I'd instantly see an index of all Radio Shack locations in Texas?
Sorry. Just more speculation from yet another convenience nut.
-
And the Angel said unto me, "These are the cries of the carrots! The cries of the carrots!"
Most of the problems on the Internet are due to trademark and domain name conflicts.
Not surprising really - as virtually every word is trademarked - Alpha to Zeta or Aardvark to Zulu - MOST many times over.
I have been communicating with US and UK authorities about this.
Would it surprise you to learn, that they know the solution to these difficulties - yet hide it from you?
Like I say, MOST trademarks share the same words or initials with many others in a different business and/or country.
For example, the World Trade Organization (WTO) shares its initials with six trademarks in the USA alone.
Despite this, each domain could be made unique and totally distinctive - as trademarks are required to be, by trademark law.
When authorities could put trademark identity beyond shadow of doubt, they either are devoid of intelligence or corrupt.
Given their response - I have come to logical conclusion that they are corrupt.
Perhaps you would be interested to hear, that the solution was ratified by honest lawyers and a panellist judge of the United Nations World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO.org).
I have WIPO.org.uk to broadcast the facts. As the United Nations WIPO.org take away similar named domains, do you not find that even slightly newsworthy?
I also have SWIPO.org - redirected to UN WIPO.org, to show disdain.
Please visit WIPO.org.uk to see the simple solution, to avoid 'consumer confusion', 'trademark conflict' and stop people 'passing off'.