Slashdot Mirror


Loophole found in Internet Domain Naming

kyndig writes "Just what is the 'spirit of internet naming?' ICANN can tell you, as they are the naming experts. In a recent CNN article, ICANN states EnCirca Domain Register is violating the spirit of internet naming by reselling .pro names. The report states that in early 2000, ICANN allowed 3rd level domains (foo.bar.pro) to be sold. Later, ICANN allowed 2nd level domains (foo.pro) to be sold for .pro as well. The restriction to this selling was that a user must have the 3rd level domain first. There are no reseller checks or usage enforcement other than the request to own a 3rd level domain from ICANN. EnCirca president plans to continue reselling 2nd level .pro domains, unless ICANN places a restriction on doing so."

29 of 230 comments (clear)

  1. Why? by Penguinoflight · · Score: 3, Funny

    Well, i've asked the same question. The simple answer is that bar doesn't make any sense alone. foo.bar is the only way to complete a thought.

    Why does this stuff get posted? There is no opinion on this, nobody mentioned that ICANN generally sucks, and who wants a .pro domain anyway?

    --
    "And we have seen and do testify that the Father sent the Son to be the Savior of the World"
    1 John 4:14
  2. ICANN sure can tell you. by nenolod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problem is that nobody seems to care about what ICANN has to say. Which is a shame. But I mean really, ICANN isn't going to be able to fight a corporation so they should probably quit with these little nitpicking events they have, as they always wind up to be a waste of bandwidth and nothing more.

  3. ICANN doing something right? by bmw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I normally don't agree with ICANN's position on many things but it seems to me that they could be taking the right stance on this. I'm not sure I would prefer tighter restrictions on domain names and TLDs but wouldn't it be nice if everyone stuck to a consistent naming convention? Imagine something a lot like what we have with newsgroups.

  4. DNS? by Poromenos1 · · Score: 5, Funny

    Bah, who needs DNS anyway? Real hackers memorize IP addresses! All you need to know is 216.239.57.99, really.

    --
    Send email from the afterlife! Write your e-will at Dead Man's Switch.
    1. Re:DNS? by SorcererX · · Score: 5, Funny

      The scary thing is... I didn't even need to look up that ip to know it was google

      --
      Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
    2. Re:DNS? by Simon+Garlick · · Score: 4, Funny

      IP addresses are for n00bs. REAL hackers memorize MAC addresses.

    3. Re:DNS? by caluml · · Score: 4, Funny
      bash-2.05b$ ping 00:32:fc:14:0a:3c
      ping: unknown host 00:32:fc:14:0a:3c
      bash-2.05b$
      It doesn't work :(
  5. ICANN is a disaster. by bigtallmofo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Nothing they do makes sense to me. It seems like they're just creating new TLDs willy-nilly and giving control of them to new companies apparently without the ability to enforce any of the controls they've created. What exactly is the purpose of all these new TLDs?


    --
    I'm a big tall mofo.
  6. I wonder how useful all these domains are. by Amiga+Lover · · Score: 4, Funny

    I wonder how useful all these extra tlds are. I've worked on a helpdesk for a .org and a .edu, and one of the REALLY common problems we get is a call from users complaining they can't get on. Invariably, they're typing "www.foo.edu.com" or "www.foo.org.com".

    I bet there's a lot of "why can't I get to lawyer.pro.com??" going on.

  7. .pro? by Underholdning · · Score: 3, Informative

    Am I the only one who's never seen a .pro domain?
    There's one cool thing about this TLD. You have to provide proof of your profession to buy such a domain. Now that's probably the reason why I've never seen a spam advertising a .pro domain.

    1. Re:.pro? by pklong · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Google is your friend as ever. Looks like nothing worthwhile is on .pro anyway...

      --

      Philip

      Signatures are broken

  8. Artificial shortage, artificial problems by ites · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As so often, a bunch of administrators have decided that they need to regulate the market, but are driven more by self-interest (justifying their jobs) than by interest in supporting a free market.

    It's Parkinson's Law: bureaucrats expand their work to fill their budgets. It's why half of my country's GDP goes to pay for civil servants.

    In the case of internet domains the only satisfactory long term solution is to allow any company to register a top level domain, with some rules to avoid abuse, and then to allow a free market for reselling, giving, using sub domains.

    Since the market has been restricted for so long, there should be a period in which existing domain holders and trademark holders can get "their" names without excessive conflict.

    All the rest - the "official registrars", the annual fees, the ICANN and their rules - it's just a tax on using the Internet for building interesting communications structures.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  9. The nature of the spirit of name restritctions by gihan_ripper · · Score: 3, Interesting

    An honest question here --- could someone please explain to me why the action of EnCirca is in transgression of the "spirit of name restrictions"?

    I don't see the problem myself, and would be grateful if someone could explain the situation.

    --
    Phoenix, Boston, Little Rock, see a pattern?
    1. Re:The nature of the spirit of name restritctions by Arathrael · · Score: 4, Informative

      Had to read the link myself to understand it, the article summary is less than clear.

      Basically, the idea was you could initially only buy third level domains such as IAAL.law.pro, but you had to provide credentials to establish your professional status to buy them.

      ICANN then allowed second level domains to be sold - e.g. IAAL.pro - but you had to own a third level domain first and hence have gone through the credential-establishing process.

      EnCirca are selling second level domains to be sold without having a third level domain first, thus skipping the credential-establishing bit entirely, and this is bad.

      That's as far as I understand it anyway. Does that make sense?

  10. Give it a few years by jfried · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Even now, people hardly remember domain names. They use google to find it because its easier that way.

    Give it a few years an people will be asking you, whats your google search string?

    But anyways its .pro, Frankly this is the first time I have heard about it. I dont think anyone will shed a tear for them.

  11. .pron by Reignking · · Score: 3, Funny

    Can .pron be far?

    --
    One man's Funny is another man's Offtopic.
  12. Wrong title by presroi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There is no "Loophole found in Internet Domain Naming" as the headline says. The loophole lies in the Policy for a certain TLD. It has nothing to do with internet domain naming.

  13. The purpose of all the new TLDs by wowbagger · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The purpose of all the new TLDs is "To allow domain registrars to make more money."

    That is why every little movie simply must have its own .com domain, rather than having a virtual directory under the domain of the publisher - e.g. paramount.com/drecky_summer_movie/

    That is why Joe's garage on the corner down the street must have JoesGarage.com, or at least JoesGarageAtFifthAndMain.com, rather than joesgarage.ict.ks.us.

    Domains get cheaper the further down the heirarchy they get - domain registrars cannot charge as much for *.lawyers.com as they can for *.com.

    Unlike physical items like land or gold, new TLDs can be created ad infinitum, so the registrars "figger" (they don't "figure" or "reason" or "think" - that is beyond them) they can get ICANN to keep creating new TLDs and they can continue to make the same amount of money forever.

    Of course, that has worked out so spectactularly well in the case of .biz - after all, I know that when I see a .biz domain I feel great trust for the domain holder, as we all know that .biz mean business, and that anybody with a .biz must therefor be trustworthy!

    .
    .
    .
    .

    Excuse me, I had to replace the sarcasm fuse in my keyboard.

  14. Well by Cyn · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The .pro domain was specifically stated to be created for 'professionals' - doctors, lawyers - basically jobs you would have recognized as professionals in 1950, it's not just ANY professional that could get a .pro!

    The problem is they're not doing any checking, they're just opening up the .pro for anyone who has the cash. Personally I wouldn't see that as a problem, but the fact of the matter is it was originally intended to be established, checked, professionals.

    I suppose the real point was to say "these people have been checked and have shown they are professional, so you can trust them - at some level - with your information". Basically a free 'level of trust', similar to a SSL cert.

    The problem is, amongst other things, nobody would goddamned well know that. Joe schmoe is going to put more trust in law.com than law.pro - "what the hell is pro".

    Most people just go out there and get their .com - maybe the net and org - and are done with it. A few of the niche markets get their .tv for example (oh the irony), but that's recognizable - and they're pimping their URL at you constantly while you watch. I could understand a .law for lawyers and the likes, but .pro is just too generic.

    IMO - the concept has failed, and was a bad assumption to begin with. If you're going to be branching out more and more domains, trying to bring in the big bucks, make them really friggin specific so they're useful.

    --
    cyn, free software and *nix operating systems enthusiast.
  15. I propose a new TLD! by thenerdgod · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It shall simply be for .

    Yeah, you heard me... '.'

    So you can register whatever you want with my new tld... Say you want... hmmm "slashdotbitesass"
    that'd be your new tld!

    origin slashdotbitesass.
    10.10.10.10 A www

    woot!

    Seriously, why the hell even go through all the trouble for new TLDs. With the possible exception of the utility of .XXX, everyone assumes ".com"
    when you say a domain name. Even if you say ".net" they try .com

    It's sheer madness!

  16. Re:really? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Informative
    The reason for a limited number of top level domains is that top level domain lookups require an access to the root DNS servers. There are a relatively small number of theses, and each DNS cache must know the IP addresses of them in order to function. With a small number of TLDs, most domain name lookups can cache the authoritative servers for them. When you look up a .com address, your DNS cache generally already knows where the authoritative server for .com domains is, and so it doesn't need to hit the root servers.

    This removes a single point of failure from the domain name system - every single root domain server can fail, and most people will only notice when they enter a TLD which doesn't exist (at which point they will get a DNS failure instead of an nonexistend domain error). Similarly, if the .com servers failed, then you would still be able to access .org domains (for example).

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  17. The Spirit of Internet Naming? by birdman17 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Too late to cry about that now. That went out the window the first time a non-commercial entity bought a .com domain...

  18. Re:linux pro by coppice · · Score: 3, Funny

    Yes, but oldest.pro is still available :-)

  19. Re:Isn't .com enough? One domain .. by ites · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Indeed, .com would be enough since trademarks mean anyone with a .com will try to get .net and .org as well.

    So, if everyone was under .com, you could just remove .com and get the same result - more or less what I am proposing.

    The current system just translates into lots and lots of registration fees.

    Take any business that operates in many countries. It is ridiculous for it to have to get domain names businessname.countryname. No-one wants to categorise companies or organisations per country.

    What it should be able to do is get countryname.businessname. Thus, we'd see names like "uk.itunes' instead of 'itunes.co.uk' (which incidentally was snapped up by a bright young thing before Apple could get it).

    The concept of national domains is anarchaic, and irrelevant. It's a totally useless concept and every popular country domain is one that is abused - e.g. .tv, .to, etc.

    Trademarks are entirely compatible with a freer scheme. Imagine two companies share the same name but operate in different markets. Easy - if you have a trademark, you are entitled to request a 2nd-level domain matching your name. I.e. two businesses with the same name, in different sectors, can share a TLD, with one or other acting as registrar for the other. The ICANN can be kept for arbitrage.

    We'd see the end of cyberquatting, stupid disputes, and fat fees for registrars just because one has to register an endless list of domains just to get adequate protection for a trademarked name.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
  20. Re:who cares? by spot35 · · Score: 3, Funny

    maybe if it was .pron...

  21. Isn't the 'sprit of internet naming'... by Andy_R · · Score: 4, Interesting

    ...simply "let's get rich quick"?

    I'll believe otherwise when .tv sites start being about the island of Tuvalu.

    Here in the uk, (where .co.uk is the normal domain for businesses) we've suffered years and years of the company that owns the (supposedly invalid according to ICANN's rules uk.com domain selling worthless 3rd level domains to people, who unsurprisingly find lots their traffic going to the 'co.uk' with the same name.

    99% of my spam comes from people who work for foo.uk.com (where foo is my company's domain) who sign up for junk and get their own address wrong. ICANN doesn't want to know about this flagrant abuse of the system, presumably because there is no financial gain to be had by closing down .uk.com

    --
    A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
  22. Re:Isn't .com enough? One domain .. by jizmonkey · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Dude, you don't understand trademarks very well. If you look at say the corporate charter filings at the Sec. of State for California you will see dozens of companies with very similar names no matter what you put in. Multiply that by 50 states, then across the world. All of them might be entitled to a particular domain name. A trademark doesn't mean that you own a sequence of letters.

    Rather than having convoluted and arbitrary names, it's better to have domain names which map to the company which is most relevant to the consumer. Someone in Belgium can easily remember company.be, likewise company.co.jp in Japan. There are very few worldwide companies like Amazon and General Motors, and even they like to customize their web sites for the local markets. Amazon.co.jp is a totally different web site than Amazon.co.uk.

    In my opinion, pretty much none of the long TLDs are worth having; all they do is cause artificial pressure on artificially scarce real estate. Perhaps a few like .org or .int are - international organizations like the Red Cross and Amnesty International don't really have a presence in any one country. But it's lunacy to have that .org TLD open for any Tom Dick or Harry's vanity site.

    Maybe if .com had used registration restrictions like .co.jp it wouldn't be so polluted. But given worldwide differences in corporate law, it would make just as much sense to not have .com in the first place, to let each country manage its own TLD, like I already said.

    --
    With great power comes great fan noise.
  23. Re:Talk about confusing by MirthScout · · Score: 3, Informative

    Actually, I think I know what they are trying to say but it did take me a while to parse it...

    Originally you could only buy 3rd level names under .pro. Now they allow you to own 2nd level names that match your 3rd level name.

    So, if you own JohnDoe.lawyer.pro you can also buy JohnDoe.pro. But you still can't buy lawyer.pro since that is a profession name and is controlled by the registrar.

  24. Professionalism by spectre_240sx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The reason Joe's Garage needs www.joesgarage.com rather than joesgarage.ict.ks.us is because it seems more professional. It creates an illusion of size to the people that don't fully understand the way the system works; ie bob smith who is looking to have his car serviced.

    In the early days of the web, most of the websites worth looking at had a .com TLD and were fairly large and I think that idea has stayed with us until now.