Posted by
ryuzaki0
on from the rollin'-em-out dept.
babycakes writes "Yesterday ICANN unanimously approved a proposal to add a number of new TLDs, to be determined at a later date. Here's the story on InfoWorld and at the BBC."
It's exactly the same issue as with the.porn domain idea
With.porn, you define a domain positively based on its content. It's easy to imagine a whole list of such domains dealing with different types of 'controversial' material, say, domians which dealt with comparitive religion, explicit but non-porn sexual matters, and so on. These domains would be blockable by arbitrarily liberal or prudish parents
.kids is different, in that it's a catch-all containing everything left over when you remove the unsuitable material. Further, it has to be suitable for children in the most repressive households, or else word gets out among some religious community that.kids allows unfettered access to material dealing with sexual health, evolution, atheism, blood transfusions, or other such horrors.
I don't think porn sites should be forced into it. It's better to somehow make it cool for porn sites to have a.porn address.
"Cool"? Pornography on the internet isn't a high-school popularity contest-- it's about making money. Making.porn "cool" might get a few porn site operators who still idolize Fonzie, but for the rest of 'em you're going to have to appeal to their pocketbooks.
-- If a job's not worth doing, it's not worth doing right.
ICANN's a damned monopoly with no interest for the common internet user. We need another top level domain registrar.
voluntary censorship by TLD
by
rdewald
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
What would really be useful for Internet culture would be a.kid TLD that would be free of content that requires a mature personality to process, such as graphic violence, graphic sex, advertising, etc. I don't have children (and I am no prude), but I can imagine what a problem it can be to manage one's children's Internet use. Having a restricted TLD might help.
-- The best way to do is to be.
.com worth more
by
QaBOjk
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
What's funny is that a.com domain name has much more value than any other TLD.. but to purchase any new TLD costs 3 times as much as a.com
" the International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated its case for ".travel," the World Health Organization (WHO) lobbied for ".health," Nokia Corp. for ".mobile" and a group of Internet companies said it wants ".III" for individuals"
IMO most of those are pretty useless. ICANN should be working on revoking the country TLDS's that are being abused (.tk,.tv). Why add more unneeded TLDs that will just confuse things?.III: Of all these proposals, this makes the most sense reasoning wise, but why three I's?.mobile: I'd love to type 'mobile' out with those annoying keypad typing things..travel: Well look who's too good for.com's.health: Same, might be useful for only 'correct' health sites to prevent users from being misinformed, but who decieds that?
Also, Has anyone here actually been glad that.info and.biz are in use?So far I've only seen one.info, and it was misused (No info on the site, it was a network). Still no.biz's yet
-- Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive.
Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
What about Domain Squatting, etc?
by
vasqzr
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Do the majority of people think it is wrong?
Maybe some of the problem is giving up some of the current domains. Sure, if you've registered the name, you own it, and should be able to sell it. But, I can't go to the copyright office and register every word in the dictionary, can I?
Adding more TLDs is going the wrong way. As others have said, there are already the country code TLDs. So phase out the existing.com,.net and.org TLDs and make everyone go by country code. It's easy enough to put your country in your search domain anyway, so that if I said "ibm.com" I'd get ibm.com.us, while someone in Japan would get ibm.com.jp. This would solve the problem of non-multinational companies taking over a domain for all countries, too, AND allow much easier regulation of country specific domains like.kids. Face it, no one in the rest of the world is going to use.kids anyway.
--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
DNS...why do we use it?
by
Joe+U
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
Additional TLD's won't help in the long run, because when it comes down to it, it's just all part of an aging DNS system.
The better solution would be to replace DNS with a better naming system.
Search engines are a good start but they are too hit or miss on many topics. Those with IE/Windows, try using the Google toolbar as your address bar for a week. It makes a decent DNS replacement system (Okay, it hides DNS, it still uses it, but it wouldn't be a big jump to switch Google to an all IP address solution)
Leaving DNS will be a huge task, bigger than changing to IP v6. There needs to be some way to get everyone to install the replacement, or convince Mozilla/Netscape, AOL and Microsoft to include it.
On a side note, at this time, there is only one plugin that has made it this far, and that's Flash. So, it can be done, there just has to be a compelling reason to get people to do it.
Re:Which solution would better?
by
mpe
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Would it be better to have many tightly regulated TLDs, such has only allowing non-profit organizations to use.org, or would it be better to have just a couple of very generic TLDs?
Or even you don't get a.com unless you are a commercial business operating in more than one country. A generic TLD would be something like.misc or.etc rather than treating.com,.net and.org as being.misc.
As it stands, most of the existing TLDs are not very regulated,
Indeed some of then have become less well regulated as time has gone on.
thereby defeating the orginal point of having different TLDs.
If domain names were used properly there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is treating a hierarchical system as though it is a flat namespace. No one is demmanding that there be more coutry names for postal mail or more country codes for telephones.
The other big problem is that existing.com owners get first pick of the new TLDs, meaning that it's just another domain companies have to buy/borrow/steal to prevent supposed trademark infringement.
Implying that the real idea is to make money out of the registrations. Anyway trademarks are ment to be specific to a specific place and type of business, though this appears to be increasingly ignored.
Re:Very nice but...
by
mpe
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
All very nice, but when the CEO demands IT get him a website with domain ".big-corp.com", you try telling him no and he now has to have "www.big-corp.screw-customers-for-profit"...of course you could always threaten, sorry, legally pressure some poor little geek for his personal domain, 'cos its got your company name in it.
Thing is that if.com were managed properly this "poor little geek" would have had to go to the trouble of registering "big-corp" as a business in at least two countries before they'd have had any chance of getting.big-corp.com The interesting thing is that many real transnational businesses want to chop their market up into regions (even single countries) anyway.
Re:Who needs domain names when you've got Google?
by
prell
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
yea I agree with this. Google is a great tool for those who know of it, and how simply powerful and accurate it is.
Recently, I started using Phoenix's address bar as a "phrase bar," where I enter what I want to see.. like "apache python module," and usually (about 90% of the time), since it automatically grabs the first google search result of "apache python module," I get exactly what I want.
I mentioned this in an article the other day but it was so far down that nobody noticed..noads would be for websites that were either completely free _or_ charged REAL MONEY for their services.
Once established I would surf almost exclusively in this domain.
Now can anybody lend me USD 50,000?
DNS is broken, let's just kill it
by
nagora
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
The whole IP crap has killed the utility of DNS; the mistake was basing it on letters. Letters mean memorable words (the original intent) but memorable words mean "branding" and "trademark" and "lawyers".
A number based system is the only practical alternative: people and companies would publicise their "web number" just as they do their phone and/or fax today. So the first root domain would be "http://1/" and the owner of that could sell http://1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 etc to whoever s/he likes. Meanwhile http://2 is sold off, then//3,//4 etc with no effective limit.
This is NOT the same as using IP numbers - the "web number" is still translated into an IP number and the IP number can be changed without changing the web number.
This kills almost all the problems with the current crap system of trademarked names and squatting while, thanks to search engines and bookmark files, not actually making the system much harder to use. A few numbers might still go for higher prices, like some phone numbers do, but this would be a far smaller issue than it is now. Meanwhile, by effectivly increasing the number of TLD's to infinity the power of ICANN is completly undermined and reigned in.
I personally would not stop old style names being used but I would like to see and end to new ones being registered. But even if the current name system just became totally commercial and everyone else went to numbers, free from the threat of legal action because their name is "too like" someone elses, it would be an improvement.
The ultimate improvement is to eliminate the control of registration of new names/numbers from a single person/group. In my alternative there is a lot less power invested anywhere since the owner of//1 can sell sub-domains forever without having to go back to the root registrar and since the numbers don't mean anything there is not such a big reason to keep wanting a TLD, but the root registrar still has too much power. I just can't think of a working system to eliminate that person and their DNS server(s) competely.
TWW
-- "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Re:Who needs domain names when you've got Google?
by
oever
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
With URL's you can access the entire web. With Google, you can't.
In a free world, 'where do you want to google today' might work.
-- DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
Why do we need tlds?
by
briancnorton
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
I dont know a whole lot about internet architecture, but is there a reason that TLDs are crucial to operations? Why couldnt I have brian.norton? Why cant there be an unlimited number of TLDs?
--
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
I would like to see...
by
anethema
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
.inc.ltd
etc..I think a limited or incorperated company would be happy to have its own Businessname.inc
Plus its short! (unlike SOME i could mention-- nokia.takesmeafuckinghourtotypethisonamobilephone
--
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
Re:Nice troll...
by
nagora
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
Seeing as how the whole point of DNS was so that people WOULDN'T HAVE TO REMEMBER NUMBERS.
No, it was so the people WOULDN'T HAVE TO TRACK CHANGING IP ADDRESSES. Duh!
It was thought that the ability to have memorable names was a nice side-effect and that it would be managed by keeping different intellectual property claims in separate domains. That worked for a while but once companies started to leak out of.com and into.net and.org the system rapidly fell apart and it now SUCKS. Go on, set up cocacola.info for all your cola-wars stories and see how long you'll last with the "but it's clearly not THE cocacola because it's.info, not.com" argument. How about something more generic like "apple.co.uk" for your orchard business? Or perhaps the world's Mr McDonalds would like a site devoted to their families? Good luck to them!
Recognisable names seemed like a good idea but are not viable in the long run; abstracting IP's is vital.
TWW
-- "Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Slashdot Mirror
A .porn domain would be good, if most of the porn was collected under a single TLD it would be easy to block it at schools and so on.
Martin
ICANN's a damned monopoly with no interest for the common internet user. We need another top level domain registrar.
What would really be useful for Internet culture would be a .kid TLD that would be free of content that requires a mature personality to process, such as graphic violence, graphic sex, advertising, etc. I don't have children (and I am no prude), but I can imagine what a problem it can be to manage one's children's Internet use. Having a restricted TLD might help.
The best way to do is to be.
What's funny is that a .com domain name has much more value than any other TLD.. but to purchase any new TLD costs 3 times as much as a .com
" the International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated its case for ".travel," the World Health Organization (WHO) lobbied for ".health," Nokia Corp. for ".mobile" and a group of Internet companies said it wants ".III" for individuals"
.tv). Why add more unneeded TLDs that will just confuse things? .III: Of all these proposals, this makes the most sense reasoning wise, but why three I's? .mobile: I'd love to type 'mobile' out with those annoying keypad typing things. .travel: Well look who's too good for .com's .health: Same, might be useful for only 'correct' health sites to prevent users from being misinformed, but who decieds that?
.info and .biz are in use?So far I've only seen one .info, and it was misused (No info on the site, it was a network). Still no .biz's yet
IMO most of those are pretty useless. ICANN should be working on revoking the country TLDS's that are being abused (.tk,
Also, Has anyone here actually been glad that
Pain lasts, kid. Its how you know you're alive. Sometimes I think this growing up thing is just pain management-TheMaxx
Do the majority of people think it is wrong?
Maybe some of the problem is giving up some of the current domains. Sure, if you've registered the name, you own it, and should be able to sell it. But, I can't go to the copyright office and register every word in the dictionary, can I?
And people who only regiesters domain names for redirects or "buy this domain for $1000" should be flogged in public!
J.
When the rest of the world creates something as innovative as the Internet, then the US will play along "just like everyone else".
I want to delete my account but Slashdot doesn't allow it.
Adding more TLDs is going the wrong way. As others have said, there are already the country code TLDs. So phase out the existing .com, .net and .org TLDs and make everyone go by country code. It's easy enough to put your country in your search domain anyway, so that if I said "ibm.com" I'd get ibm.com.us, while someone in Japan would get ibm.com.jp. This would solve the problem of non-multinational companies taking over a domain for all countries, too, AND allow much easier regulation of country specific domains like .kids. Face it, no one in the rest of the world is going to use .kids anyway.
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
Additional TLD's won't help in the long run, because when it comes down to it, it's just all part of an aging DNS system.
The better solution would be to replace DNS with a better naming system.
Search engines are a good start but they are too hit or miss on many topics. Those with IE/Windows, try using the Google toolbar as your address bar for a week. It makes a decent DNS replacement system (Okay, it hides DNS, it still uses it, but it wouldn't be a big jump to switch Google to an all IP address solution)
Leaving DNS will be a huge task, bigger than changing to IP v6. There needs to be some way to get everyone to install the replacement, or convince Mozilla/Netscape, AOL and Microsoft to include it.
On a side note, at this time, there is only one plugin that has made it this far, and that's Flash. So, it can be done, there just has to be a compelling reason to get people to do it.
Would it be better to have many tightly regulated TLDs, such has only allowing non-profit organizations to use .org, or would it be better to have just a couple of very generic TLDs?
.com unless you are a commercial business operating in more than one country. A generic TLD would be something like .misc or .etc rather than treating .com, .net and .org as being .misc.
.com owners get first pick of the new TLDs, meaning that it's just another domain companies have to buy/borrow/steal to prevent supposed trademark infringement.
Or even you don't get a
As it stands, most of the existing TLDs are not very regulated,
Indeed some of then have become less well regulated as time has gone on.
thereby defeating the orginal point of having different TLDs.
If domain names were used properly there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is treating a hierarchical system as though it is a flat namespace. No one is demmanding that there be more coutry names for postal mail or more country codes for telephones.
The other big problem is that existing
Implying that the real idea is to make money out of the registrations. Anyway trademarks are ment to be specific to a specific place and type of business, though this appears to be increasingly ignored.
All very nice, but when the CEO demands IT get him a website with domain ".big-corp.com", you try telling him no and he now has to have "www.big-corp.screw-customers-for-profit"...of course you could always threaten, sorry, legally pressure some poor little geek for his personal domain, 'cos its got your company name in it.
.com were managed properly this "poor little geek" would have had to go to the trouble of registering "big-corp" as a business in at least two countries before they'd have had any chance of getting .big-corp.com
Thing is that if
The interesting thing is that many real transnational businesses want to chop their market up into regions (even single countries) anyway.
yea I agree with this. Google is a great tool for those who know of it, and how simply powerful and accurate it is.
Recently, I started using Phoenix's address bar as a "phrase bar," where I enter what I want to see.. like "apache python module," and usually (about 90% of the time), since it automatically grabs the first google search result of "apache python module," I get exactly what I want.
I mentioned this in an article the other day but it was so far down that nobody noticed. .noads would be for websites that were either completely free _or_ charged REAL MONEY for their services.
Once established I would surf almost exclusively in this domain.
Now can anybody lend me USD 50,000?
A number based system is the only practical alternative: people and companies would publicise their "web number" just as they do their phone and/or fax today. So the first root domain would be "http://1/" and the owner of that could sell http://1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 etc to whoever s/he likes. Meanwhile http://2 is sold off, then //3, //4 etc with no effective limit.
This is NOT the same as using IP numbers - the "web number" is still translated into an IP number and the IP number can be changed without changing the web number.
This kills almost all the problems with the current crap system of trademarked names and squatting while, thanks to search engines and bookmark files, not actually making the system much harder to use. A few numbers might still go for higher prices, like some phone numbers do, but this would be a far smaller issue than it is now. Meanwhile, by effectivly increasing the number of TLD's to infinity the power of ICANN is completly undermined and reigned in.
I personally would not stop old style names being used but I would like to see and end to new ones being registered. But even if the current name system just became totally commercial and everyone else went to numbers, free from the threat of legal action because their name is "too like" someone elses, it would be an improvement.
The ultimate improvement is to eliminate the control of registration of new names/numbers from a single person/group. In my alternative there is a lot less power invested anywhere since the owner of //1 can sell sub-domains forever without having to go back to the root registrar and since the numbers don't mean anything there is not such a big reason to keep wanting a TLD, but the root registrar still has too much power. I just can't think of a working system to eliminate that person and their DNS server(s) competely.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
With URL's you can access the entire web. With Google, you can't.
In a free world, 'where do you want to google today' might work.
DNA is the ultimate spaghetti code.
I dont know a whole lot about internet architecture, but is there a reason that TLDs are crucial to operations? Why couldnt I have brian.norton? Why cant there be an unlimited number of TLDs?
People who think they know everything really piss off those of us that actually do.
.inc .ltd
etc..I think a limited or incorperated company would be happy to have its own Businessname.inc
Plus its short!
(unlike SOME i could mention-- nokia.takesmeafuckinghourtotypethisonamobilephone
It's easier to fight for one's principles than to live up to them.
No, it was so the people WOULDN'T HAVE TO TRACK CHANGING IP ADDRESSES. Duh!
It was thought that the ability to have memorable names was a nice side-effect and that it would be managed by keeping different intellectual property claims in separate domains. That worked for a while but once companies started to leak out of .com and into .net and .org the system rapidly fell apart and it now SUCKS. Go on, set up cocacola.info for all your cola-wars stories and see how long you'll last with the "but it's clearly not THE cocacola because it's .info, not .com" argument. How about something more generic like "apple.co.uk" for your orchard business? Or perhaps the world's Mr McDonalds would like a site devoted to their families? Good luck to them!
Recognisable names seemed like a good idea but are not viable in the long run; abstracting IP's is vital.
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"