Slashdot Mirror
ICANN to Incorporate TLDs Already In-use?
An anonymous reader asks: "I recently found an article at cnn.com about ICANN considering new top level domains. Some of the proposed TLDs have already been introduced by YOUCANN such as .xxx and have been available to the public at select registrars such as new.net for quite some time. If ICANN incorporates already existing TLDs how will this impact those who have already registered for domain on these TLDs? What implications does this have and how will the ramifications impact how businesses view and utilize the web?"
That's what they get for trying to squat.
And thus dawns a new age of litigation (as if the old one had ever finished).
As usual, the only winners in this will be the lawyers.
Blah, blah, blah. Look, new.net is not selling REAL TLDs. You've got to download a plugin for them to be visible to your browser. Since they're not real TLDs, fuck 'em and their customers for being stupid. Case closed.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
It is malware.
It should be removed on sight.
If I see it on someone's computer, I strongly advise them to remove it entirely from their computer.
Recently, ICANN announced it would add some additional TLDs to their root. However, they neglected to mention that they will deliberately duplicate existing TLDs and cause collisions in the name space. It is important to understand what that means.
Of course, that's YouCANN's side of the story. But the thing is, YouCANN's domains have never been recognized by the "root nameservers" like all ICANN-approved domain names are.
The problem here is that the ICANN root nameservers derive their authority from, uh, being the ICANN root nameservers. Several other pretenders to the title have created their own nameservers, that you can configure your PC to check as well. Most offer a simple configuration program to do that for users.
So, what happens when two sets of root nameservers both claim to be the authoritative servers over the same namespace... I think that's a lawsuit.
If I start allocating blocks out of, for example, 69.250.0.0/16 and setting up VPNs to make them work... should this bar ARIN from allocating these blocks to legitimate users?
How about if I propose a alternate TLD to an alternate root which conflicts with the ISO code for a country thats forming?
The problem with catering to alternate roots, or alternate registries of any sort for that matter, is your encuraging people to break the standard.
symetrix. We are building a religion, a limited edition.
Many of the legitimate registrars on the Internet are pretty scummy, and ICANN is coming close to the bottom of the barrel, but they can't touch New.net for pure scam-artist nastiness. Anything that's bad for New.net, their "buisiness plan" and their damn spyware is good for the Internet at large. I would love to see them forced to shut down because there are actual, legitimate TLDs that conflict with their offerings. Unfortunately, they'd probably just update their "client software" to check their DNS servers before anything actually legitimate (like, say, the customer's ISP or a root-level nameserver). Anything bad for New.net is good for the Internet at large. They are nothing but scam artists selling something they don't own (new domain names), and deserve everything ICANN in all its fascist idiocy can throw at them. There aren't many people or companies in the world I would wish that upon, but New.net has made the list in spades.
That's it. I'm no longer part of Team Sanity.
shell:~$ host www.opennic.glue
.glue isn't a "REAL TLD" because you don't see it on your nameserver? Give me a break.
.biz, and if they want to do it again with .xxx, they can go ahead. I'm not going to honor it. OpenNIC recognizes Alternic as the maintainer of .xxx, and it'll remain that way on my nameserver until Alternic decides/acts otherwise.
www.opennic.glue has address 131.161.247.68
Oh, I guess
Open your eyes, there is more than one namespace in the world. Just because you may be a loyal follower of ICANN doesn't mean that everyone else is.
That plugin just tells that computer to resolve certain TLDs elsewhere.
Sure, the domains for those "alternative" TLDs may be overpriced, but that's their choice if they want to buy them.
ICANN introduced a colliding TLD of
The ICANN root only has as much authority as you give it. If somebody decides to run an alternate dns root, then that's there thing. Nobody can complain when ICANN creates a TLD in its root, which just happens to be the one most use.
If it uses a plugin, it hardly counts. A web browser only solution is hardly a solution at all, and just shows how clueless newnet is.
I won't even get into the whole distributing it as spyware thing... ok, I can't resist a parting shot. Uninstalling it didn't work, and manually cleaning the registry didn't either, it had sabotaged the network stack. Reinstalling win2000 over the top of the old didn't fix loss of network connectivity, and she can't move her important files off of it so I can reinstall properly.
All so they could try and sell their asshat, overpriced TLDs.
I have my own set of TLDs, carefully chosen so that I'm unlikely to ever fall victim to ICANN. Anyone not doing the same thing is a fool.
What's with the drive-by modding-down of comments alluding to New.Net's crapware and its tendency to cripple internet connections?
Or were you just trying to be funny?
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
The fact of the matter is that systems like new.net are not part of the DNS. The DNS is controlled by ICANN. Period.
.biz registry, the people at one of the alternative DNS places that had been serving up fake .biz domains for years complained. But it boiled over quickly.
These quasi registries usually require browser plugins loaded with spyware to work at all, and only a fraction of the public internet population even knows they're even there. When ICANN added the
ICANN cannot be held responsible for what poeple outside the DNS do to create alternative quasi domains. Unless of course the quasi registrars have trademarked them, which I believe new.net may have.
In any case, this will be interesting.
Can't wait to see the flash based protest movies depicting the ICANN board as card people. Woo hoo!
This signature has Super Cow Powers
Just like how every home in the U.S. has Comcast cable? Right.
.com lookups. Think of it as ICANN's domains plus more.
Just because you don't believe that you have a choice doesn't mean there aren't any choices.
There are a good deal of nameservers that don't blindly follow ICANN. This doesn't mean we use another nameserver for all
You may not think that colliding other TLDs is a bad idea, but at least realize that they are introducing collisions.
All these "other TLDs" get used for is spam anyway.
.biz or .info TLD that wasn't owned by spammers or some corporation that already owned the corresponding .com,.net, and .org already.
Oh, a few get used for silly pages (chicken.coop?) but the vast majority get used for spam.
I have yet to see a
Well ... I only found out about these unofficial domain's today. Also I noticed I have support for them.
.com .org .net usually one of those. With this new system there is like 30 of them. "Maybe .ocean or .god or .sex" etc etc. Also if these people don't like ICANN then don't use the root DNS servers. Live off the fake DNS entrys they made and live in the fantasy world.
Frankly I think ICANN has a reason for not making every single TLD they can think of. It's too fucking hard to keep track of. Atleast now you know "okay the site is somthing. oh maybe
The Internet can't live 100% without "someone" taking stand. Think about how much of a mess the net would be if no one had "one" DNS server and everyone used there own. Or what would happen if no one owned IP's and they where free. People would have IP's left and right. Taking them and such. The Internet has to have some control (even tho most of you's don't like the idea of that and some do). Still it needs someone to watch it and make sure it is doing good. You have to remember alot of money goes through this internet now and people depend on it quite a bit.
Where would the internet be if no one "took charge"
Would there be an internet ?
Just somthing to think upon
Solosoft.org - Your Online Resource to Nothing
redundancy != decentralisation
Could the owner of an existing dmoain name in one of the exiting new.net domains sue someone who registers the same domain name with the new ICANN-approved registrar under trademark law?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
You may not think that colliding other TLDs is a bad idea, but at least realize that they are introducing collisions.
.info, .xxx, .xyz, .foobar, etc..."
.xxx (or whatever) domain yet doesn't take away from the fact that it's the alternate roots are the ones that introduced the collision.
Icann had/has the privilege/responsibility of administering the root '.' domain. They had the power to potentially create any toplevel domain that they saw fit to create, and most people recognized the reality of "icann could create a
For youcann or any other "alternative root" to suggest that icann "introduced the collision" is a deception. The whole top-level namespace was for icann to administer! Just because icann hadn't created the real toplevel
My whole argument is based on the following premise: There must be one view of the domain namespace in order for everybody to be able to successfully communicate using those domain names. The only orderly way to allow for that single view to exist is to have one organization that is responsible for administering that namespace.
I much prefer another poster's suggestion (on a different story) of creating a .kids domain that is limited to pg-13 content. The internet is for adults or mature kids. If you want to censor, do it the other way around.
harmonious design
DNS is a hierarchical system, and the tree has One Root. (There Can Be Only One!) That may or may not have been the best architectural design that could have been done (Pike & Thompson's paper "The Hideous Name" argues credibly that it was a Bad Idea), but that's the way it is. There's no particularly good reason that, just because there's One Root, that ICANN or Verisign or the U.S.Department of Commerce or Jon Postel's Ghost should be in charge of it, and there are many good reasons that they shouldn't be, but again, that's the way it is. (The mathematical term is "Proof by Vigorous Assertion", and it's worked fairly well here.) In fact the Cabal of 13 Root Server Operators, or some big fraction of them, could theoretically decide to stop listening to ICANN and do something better, but they haven't, in spite of much provocation, and it's unlikely that they will.
There are two basic competitors to the ICANN namespace root. One is the various "Open Root" "Alternate Root" "Orange Root" etc. folks who've sprung up and declared that they can be root just as well as ICANN's preferred root, and at one point as much as half a percent of the Internet occasionally used them to resolve TLDs. If 99.5% of the net doesn't use you, you're not in charge. Some of them have gotten into legal squabbles with ICANN or its predecessors over names that both sides claimed, and they've lost.
The more interesting case is people like new.net, who are selling shortcut namespace for subsets of the DNS hierarchy, roughly equivalent to example.newTLD.new.net. They work for two reasons - one is that new.net has gotten a bunch of major ISPs to buy in and resolve new.net names from their nameservers, and another is that most DNS resolvers have a default suffix, so if the suffix is "3ld.2ld.tld" and they can't directly resolve "example.foo", they'll try example.foo.3ld.2ld.tld, example.foo.2ld.tld, and example.foo.tld, so you can usually trick them into resolving "example.newTLD" as "example.newTLD.new.net". If enough people (or their ISPs) buy into this, you can get yourself a real market in those names, and otherwise you'll have a bunch of grumpy customers who explain that you can reach their website or email at "example.newTLD.new.net".
New.net's FAQ says that if ICANN introduces a TLD name that New.net has been selling, than individual users and ISPs will have to decide who to follow, and that new.net thinks they'll have enough market leverage to dominate. That's a big problem for a new.net user "example.newTLD.new.net" if the ICANN registry sells "example.TLD"; it's a smaller problem for them if ICANN has that TLD but none of the ICANN registries have sold "example.newTLD" yet, so maybe they need to land-rush and buy it from ICANN-space. It's $10-20 for the first year, which is the main risk. They knew the product was limited and somewhat risky when they bought it, and the risks and limitations were disclosed up front.
The more interesting case is what happens if somebody buys "example.newTLD.new.net" first and registers it as a trademark, then somebody else buys "example.newTLD" from ICANN-space, and the first group tries to seize the name, either in an ICANN UDRP arbitration, or else in a trademark lawsuit ignoring the ICANN process. Yes, either approach would be much more expensive than just spending the $10-20 to register the name directly, but sometimes somebody else registers it before you do, either as a bad faith cybersquatting ripoff (like really-distinctive-well-known-name.newTLD), or just because it's a commercially obvious generic name (li
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Being naive, I'm sure, but...
If a person sets up a site on, say, "mysite.ext" - the 'ext' TLD being one managed by an 'unofficial' namespace registrar, then who gets to see that site when browsing to, say, "http://www.mysite.ext/" ?
I probably don't - my ISP, both at home and here at my vacation address, appears to use whatever trickles down from the root (official) nameservers.
So wouldn't that person have to persuade others from using the 'unofficial' namespace registrar's settings/software/whatever to be able to visit their site in this manner in the first place ?
So now we have a situation where there may be "mysite.xxx" already for those who use the 'unofficial' namespace registrar, and in a way another "mysite.xxx" for those who use whatever trickled down from the root (official) namespace registrar.
So the person who wanted to see the 'unofficial' "mysite.xxx", having to change their settings to do so, will still see the site they are used to.
And those who never wanted to see the 'unofficial' "mysite.xxx" to begin with, will be able to see the 'official' "mysite.xxx" without fear of seeing the 'unofficial' one.
The only problem I see, therefore, is the group of people setup to see the 'unofficial' namespaces will be, in a way, unable to see the 'official' ones. But wasn't that basically the risk they took when they went for this solution ?
For what it's worth, I'd imagine that you can always set something up to poll multiple namespaces - or a specific namespace - when consulting a particular URL, and either ask the user which site they want to see if it's new, or take whatever site was stored to file earlier.
Like an extension of the 'hosts' file, if you will.
Easily censored by parents. Name one pr0n server operator who *wants* kids to look at their pages.
At the same time it would allow them to easily be found, which is something pr0n server operators like.
Actually the "quazi" registries are running DNS and do not NEED plug ins to work. The bulk of their users are probably using plugins but it is possible for you, your networking guys or your ISP to decide to honour these domains and enter the required information into your DNS servers so that no plug ins are required.
NewNet claim that alot of their domain's users are running like this.
Matt Thompson - Actuality - Insert product here.
because doing so would cause a splurge of official registires popping up everywhere, hoping they'd get a piece of the pie once their tld's because 'official' hey no need for leg breaking !
Please define the terms "porn" an "unsuited for minors" in a globally acceptable way first.
Claus
So it's a choice between "we must protect the children" and putting all porn in .xxx, and "we must protect the children" and putting all the children sites in .kids?
Somehow, I think the problem might be in the statement "we must protect the children."
What do you do when you discover that the star you bought from the National Star Naming Association or whatever other scam company happens to be named a rather mundane Ursa Majoris B by the people who actually have the AUTHORITY to name stars?
If IPv6 removes the need for host header redirects, then domain names won't be vital anyway.
Web browsers can simple come with links to Google's and yahoo's IP addresses and they can switch to using IPs in their search results.
This way companies can fight it out for relevance on the keywords they want, and users get to make the final choice of which site to go to.
And who gets to decide whether something is or is not a porn site? If I want to publish a quote from Lady Chatterly's Lover on my blog, do I have to get an .xxx tld first?