Slashdot Mirror


The Beginnings of a TLD Free-For-All?

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo writes "According to the BBC, ICANN is considering opening up the wholesale creation of TLDs by private industry. While I'm sure this is done for the convenience of the companies and has nothing to do with the several thousand dollars they will be charging for each registration, I was curious what the tech community at large thought about this idea. It seems to me that this will simply open the doors for a never-ending stream of TLD squatters."

112 of 489 comments (clear)

  1. Sweet by Jailbrekr · · Score: 5, Funny

    Now I can finally realize my dream and create the ".isgay" TLD.

    --
    Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
    1. Re:Sweet by Oxy+the+moron · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You can have that one. I'm going to register the ".votecowboyneal" TLD.

      --

      Proudly supporting the Libertarian Party.

    2. Re:Sweet by arth1 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dibs on .slashdot

    3. Re:Sweet by EdIII · · Score: 2, Funny

      God DAMMIT!! You fucking squatter POS!

      So Ummmmmm...... I'll give you $50 bucks for it. $100? $200? Come on!

      Seriously name your price :)

    4. Re:Sweet by UnknowingFool · · Score: 4, Funny

      Or how about my dreams of a .cowboyneal TLD? Tell you what you can have cowboyneal.isgay and I'll take isgay.cowboyneal. Yours is for most normal folk while mine is for the Yoda speaking /. crowd.

      --
      Well, there's spam egg sausage and spam, that's not got much spam in it.
    5. Re:Sweet by jdray · · Score: 2, Funny

      .thatswhatshesaid

      --
      The Spoon
      Updated 6/28/2011
    6. Re:Sweet by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Funny
      As long as I get dibs on .sucks Hell can you imagine how much money I'll make just from screwed over consumers? comcast.sucks,bestbuy.sucks,walmart,etc. I'll make a fortune! Then I might get a chance to live my dream: to buy out Microsoft and force Ballmer to be my personal court jester,complete with stupid hat and pointy shoes. He will have to do the monkey dance for my amusement and I will send him to crush my enemies with chairs and his super B.O. I can see it now...


      DANCE MONKEY BOY,DANCE! And to show my appreciation to my customers I would allow those burnt by WinME and Vista to throw rotten vegetables at him every Thursday afternoon,which would be broadcast live on technet for those who couldn't get away from work. But that is just my dream,your evil thoughts may vary.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    7. Re:Sweet by osu-neko · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Are generic names like that really worth that much? I doubt "search.com" is making CNet as much money as "google.com" is making Google.

      --
      "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."
    8. Re:Sweet by EdIII · · Score: 5, Funny

      I fervently pray for your dream to come to true. I really do.

      So umm, do you need a captain of the guard in your royal court? Would he get to mess around with the jester too?

      Just askin'.

      Any applications to fill out? Hello?

    9. Re:Sweet by querist · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem with your ".isgay" TLD is that it can go both ways, just like Captain Jack. (Yes, pun intended - it was way too easy.)

      Either way, there's profit...

      To some, having a "myname".isgay would be horrible, and they would pay to have it removed or to take ownership from it and make it look like it isn't real.

      To others (e.g. Captain Jack) it would be a badge of honour and thus subject to the same domain-squatting issues as other "desirable" domain names.

      Either way, you'll be rich. Good luck!

    10. Re:Sweet by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 5, Funny

      You know, I am really tired of silly, childish, and unrealistic posts by immature child-like idiots on /.

      Fortunately, this isn't one of them. I for one, welcome you, my consumer-rage TLD overlord.

      Make sure you give him the little stick with bells and a tiny Ballmer-puppet head.

      --
      You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
    11. Re:Sweet by cerelib · · Score: 5, Funny

      ... Ballmer to be my personal court jester,complete with stupid hat and pointy shoes. He will have to do the monkey dance for my amusement and I will send him to crush my enemies with chairs and his super B.O. So... are you implying that Steve Ballmer is The Mule? I guess that would explain Microsofts mysterious assimilation or destruction of all who dare to stand in their way and, really, why anybody would like Steve Ballmer in the first place. I would have suspected frail Bill Gates, but you might just be on the right track.
    12. Re:Sweet by Manfre · · Score: 2, Funny

      I can't wait for clownpenis.fart to be a financial website.

    13. Re:Sweet by chemisus · · Score: 2, Funny

      I am surprised that there is yet no mention of a goat.secx

    14. Re:Sweet by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I doubt "search.com" is making CNet as much money as "google.com" is making Google.

      Sure, but when google.search redirects to msn.search (especially in a sneaky, but not trademark infringy way), people will start to use it more and more. And as custom TLD's become more and more commonplace, less people will think of .com or .co.[country code] as the standard. .com's will become much like .net's or .org's.

      What ICANN really messed up with was the TLD concept reading backwards. It should be tld.domain.www, or com.google.mail, com.google.search, com.google.etc. It confuses a lot of people to have the order the other way. And now, if TLD's spread like this, suddenly there are tons of people with .mail etc. that can all look more realistic than mail.google.com.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    15. Re:Sweet by gameboyhippo · · Score: 4, Funny

      Even better, I'm going to register .corn Imagine going to google.corn! In some fonts it looks like google.com. Even better www.somebank.corn!!! Yeah! I'll be rich!

    16. Re:Sweet by freedomonline08 · · Score: 3, Informative
      I'm actually attending the ICANN meeting this week in Paris. If you care to share your comments please, here's a couple of ways

      1. IRC backchannel - irc://chat.icann.org#icann-general-discussion

      2. Twitter feed - http://twitter.com/netfreedom

      3. At Large (user) advisory committee - http://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/alac_atlarge-lists.icann.org

    17. Re:Sweet by doctorfaustus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "What ICANN really messed up with was the TLD concept reading backwards. It should be ... com.google.etc. It confuses a lot of people to have the order the other way. "
       
      Yeah, look at all the confused people typing in "com.google."
       
      Seriously, the ordering is just a convention. It can go either way as long as it does so consistently.

    18. Re:Sweet by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Seriously, the ordering is just a convention. It can go either way as long as it does so consistently.

      Good job. You, like I, am a geek and understand this. My mother does not understand that [subdomain].her-bank.com is still her bank, and made me drive over because she was convinced that there was malware on her computer. No one types in "com.google", but most people don't understand that, at least theoretically, "google.com" and "microsoft.com" have more in common than "google.net" and "microsoft.net".

      Further, there already is a convention in English, Spanish, Italian, German, Greek, Russian, pretty much all western countries of reading left to right. At least with e-mail I have the @ sign. X at Y dot com makes sense. X dot Y dot com, while I understand, does not to most people imply the same logical structure. Hell, filesystems put subdirectories on the right. Even URLs do this. As I type this, it is slashdot.org/comments.pl Notice that after the URL I revert to reading left to right.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    19. Re:Sweet by ProfessionalCookie · · Score: 2, Funny

      I call dibs on .localhost

    20. Re:Sweet by sneezinglion · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually they followed a convention, which I believe most countries follow.

      The postal convention. Think of how you address a letter.

      Most Specific
      Next most specific
      next most
      least

      get it?

    21. Re:Sweet by Eivind · · Score: 2, Interesting

      True. Either way, aslong as it's consistent.

      The most-significant part could be at either end, aslong as it's consistent.

      Except with URLs it's not. The most significant part is in the MIDDLE which is plainly braindead.

      http://3.2.1/4/5

      That look like a sensible arrangement to anyone ?

      Atleast with email it's 3@2.1 so in a sequence, though the oposite one from the one we -normally- use.

      US dates share the same sillyness. day-month-year is fine, as is year-month-day, but whoever decided on putting the least-significant part in the freaking MIDDLE as in month-day-year ?

      Should be http://org.slashdot/comments.php

    22. Re:Sweet by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 2, Interesting

      You realize that the "postal convention" is broken onto seperate lines? And that partway through it doesn't suddenly get more specific ("slashdot.com/comments.pl" is "2.1/3" as far as general to specific goes)? That "postal convention" was designed to put the recipient first (since mail is to a recipient rather than a location, which is why it is illegal to open mail that came to your address under a different name; and why mail forwarding works), and the rest is only routing information? That's why user@address makes sense to people. Address.TLD does not. Even on /., which site do you expect to have more in commmon with google.com, google.net or microsoft.com. If the answer is google.net, then the TLD system was designed so poorly you don't even expect it to be meaningful anymore.

      Lastly, the number of counter examples to what you claim as a standard are innumerable. Look at telephones (a far more apt analogy), Country Code - Area Code - Exchange - Extension.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
  2. Worst idea ever by kramer2718 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Creation of new domains is like extortion. For example, Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids, disney.parks, disney.film, etc. just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse.

    1. Re:Worst idea ever by oahazmatt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Creation of new domains is like extortion. For example, Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids, disney.parks, disney.film, etc. just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse. Of course, they'd be too embarassed to buy disney.porn or disney.xxx, so that's not really a valid point. :)
      --
      Those who believe the Internet is private,
      find their privates are on the Internet.
    2. Re:Worst idea ever by lilomar · · Score: 5, Informative

      When was the last time a multi-million dollar corporation was embarrassed about anything?

      Corporations are just like people, except, you know, completely different.

      --
      The creator of this post (Jacob Smith) hereby releases it, and all of his other posts, into the public domain.
    3. Re:Worst idea ever by Rinisari · · Score: 3, Informative

      They should visit film.disney.com, kids.disney.com, and fun.disney.com. The DNS works backwards, and people should learn that just as they learn how an email address works and how to work web forms.

    4. Re:Worst idea ever by Floritard · · Score: 5, Insightful

      .com was originally supposed to mean strictly commercial sites was it not? Moving away from that original intent, it's become ingrained in most casual user's minds that this is the obligatory suffix of a typical web address. .net and .org are only sightly as recognizable as additional suffixes. I think it would be difficult to get people comfortable with the idea that the TLD can be any word you want. If anything .com will just be seen as the most legitimate address and anything else will be automatically suspect.

      Disney already has registered TLDs for the localized versions of it's site for other regions and any further categorical distinctions for content can be accomplished with subdomains. There's not really any need for Disney or any other large corps to make use of unique TLDs. While this doesn't stop spammers from setting up their own dubious TLDs and trying to lure people there, after a few publicized incidents of scams I think it would become fairly common knowledge that people should stick to trusting .com or the localized regional version thereof.

    5. Re:Worst idea ever by EdIII · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Great observation. That is exactly why any TLD that is not .COM automatically has to have less value. .ORG has slightly less value since that is seen as charitable and foundations, but .NET is even a little suspect in most cases.

      Once you move farther away from .COM you see progressively less and less value to the point that the only value left is one of speculation.

      Hence, this new development is a squatters paradise. This might be a good thing then.

      We can strictly regulate squatting on the .COM's and let all the squatters speculate and have their market of illusions (delusions really) on any other randomly created TLD :)

    6. Re:Worst idea ever by Random+Destruction · · Score: 4, Informative

      that sucks.

      http://www.regular-expressions.info/ is actually quite a useful site.

      --
      :x
    7. Re:Worst idea ever by maxume · · Score: 3, Interesting

      They can buy them and have them resolve to nothing, or they can let someone else buy them and have them resolve to hardcore pornography.

      Not buying them is a lot more embarrassing.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    8. Re:Worst idea ever by gabebear · · Score: 2, Informative

      Famous trademarks have more protection. Look at Trademark dillution

    9. Re:Worst idea ever by ady1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Or they can just create .disney TLD and ignore the subdomains of other TLDs. Just like anyone can create disney.somedomain.com and it will be of no interest to them.

    10. Re:Worst idea ever by camperdave · · Score: 2, Insightful

      All they would have to do is create a separate corporate entity to own the names so that the Disney name can remain "pure", like they did with Touchstone pictures.

      --
      When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
    11. Re:Worst idea ever by roguetrick · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Fair Use has nothing to do with trademarks. IP world can get confusing if you're not paying that much attention.

      --
      -The world would be a better place if everyone had a hoverboard
    12. Re:Worst idea ever by SeePage87 · · Score: 2, Funny

      My preacher told me this, and I've always just taken it on faith (pun intended)

    13. Re:Worst idea ever by MaWeiTao · · Score: 4, Interesting

      For example, disney.usedcars. Unless Disney gets into the automotive business, there would be no trademark issue.

      Generally it is true that it wouldn't be an issue if two companies with the same name are in different industries. However, in this case it would be a problem, because of Disney's widespread brand recognition.

      The World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 2000 sued the World Wrestling Federation (WWF) and successfully forced them to change their name. They had an agreement in which the wrestling federation could use the initials, but it was determined there was some violation of that agreement.

      And the last time I checked the World Wildlife Fund hasn't gotten into professional wrestling.

    14. Re:Worst idea ever by Torvaun · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think it'd actually be fitting for phishing sites to be using .con.

      --
      I see your informative link, and raise you a pithy comment.
    15. Re:Worst idea ever by neomunk · · Score: 2, Funny

      "With a name like Painful Rectal Itch, it has to be good."
            --Saturday Night Live skit, late 1970s(?)

      I bet Smuckers thought that was just HILARIOUS.

    16. Re:Worst idea ever by neomunk · · Score: 4, Funny

      And the last time I checked the World Wildlife Fund hasn't gotten into professional wrestling. Not only that, but they get REALLY PISSED when you goad their bears into it.
    17. Re:Worst idea ever by tehniobium · · Score: 4, Informative

      The TLD's do have one use (some of them anyway) - they indicate the expected language of the page your about to see.

      For many companies in denmark, for example, the NAME.dk domain is more important than the NAME.com...as .com is not what danish people type automatically. - also, for example, the danish newspaper "BT" would not be able to get the url bt.com (british telecoms) - but use bt.dk with success, and without breaking any IP laws.

      --
      No kitty, this is my pot pie!
    18. Re:Worst idea ever by lazlo · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unfortunately, this isn't the worst idea ever, at least for ICANN. Extortion it is, but extortion isn't really a bad idea if you're the one doing it, else it wouldn't be so popular.

      However, opening the TLD floodgates doesn't help anyone other than ICANN and the registrars. Additional TLD's which are functionally equivalent to the existing TLD's are not useful. Additional TLD's are useful with respect to any exclusivity they enforce. .com, .net, .org, are all functionally equivalent these days. .edu, .gov, and .mil are actually, in fact, useful. They are useful specifically because I can't get one. The proposed .bank had some hope of being useful, although it suffers from the endemic problem of appointing someone or some organization to decide for the whole world, what constitutes a bank. .xxx or .porn has some hope of being useful, because it is self-exclusive in that there's somewhat of a disincentive to having a .porn domain if you are not, in fact, in the business of providing porn.

      Of course, nothing useful will come to pass. It's too tempting to sell domains to everyone, and the useful things that could be done with TLD's could be done with SLD's as well, but aren't. It would be useful, for example, to have a company that already does work in the field of corporate information such as Dunn & Bradstreet, to start offering "vetted" corporate listings, such as "yourcompanyhere".dnb.com. But they don't do it, because a) it wouldn't really be all that useful, and b) because very few people would use it and thus c) very few companies would buy it.

      --
      Pound! Bang! Bin! Bash! is this a shell script or a Batman comic?
    19. Re:Worst idea ever by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I would suspect .con would see some value for typosquatters as well.

      But, at least that TLD would be an accurate description...

    20. Re:Worst idea ever by jez9999 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Moving away from that original intent, it's become ingrained in most casual user's minds that this is the obligatory suffix of a typical web address. .net and .org are only sightly as recognizable as additional suffixes.

      Exactly. That's why I always visit slashdot.com, I know it's the real Slashdot. That .org site is an obvious scam, filled with pointless 'news' links and inane comments.

  3. 3rd post & by tinkerghost · · Score: 4, Funny

    I still get to call dibs on XXX?
    what is wrong with you people?!

    1. Re:3rd post & by Kifoth · · Score: 2, Informative

      I still get to call dibs on XXX? xXx © Copyright 2002. Revolution Studios. All Rights Reserved.
  4. ICANN should make domains more expensive by xutopia · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If domains were expensive enough we wouldn't have squatters. Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy?

    1. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by SQLGuru · · Score: 2, Funny

      Assuming how much money they spend remains the same and that domains are roughly $10 to register (+ or -), instead of registering thousands, they will registers fourties.

      Layne

    2. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Raising prices will just force out the casual user. Right now I can get hosting and domain registration for $35-50 a year. I like having my own domain for personal use, but charging $250 a year for the registration it would make it a really expensive luxury.
      For any vaguely competent squatter, ads and possible sale of the domain would still make up for most of even that cost, so they wouldn't suffer at all.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    3. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by pla · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy?

      Of course, that would limit domain names to basically the corporate-only world, since how many private individuals would pay that much just to have their blog or family website at its own name?

      You want to get rid of squatters? Simple:
      1) Elimintate "tasting" completely.
      2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give address within 30 days.

      That would, however, reduce the registrars' profits, so you'll never see them happen.

    4. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by GleeBot · · Score: 5, Insightful

      2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give
      address within 30 days. Your second point assumes that domain names are registered exclusively for putting up Web sites. There are plenty of legitimate uses for domain names that don't require putting up a public page for the entire Internet to see. Heck, there may even be some value in someone creating, say, a parody site that looks like a page of ads, or doing so to hide a real site.

      I'd rather not have a registrar deciding whether or not to revoke my domain name registration just because they didn't think the content was non-trivial.

    5. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by metamatic · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You missed

      3) Prohibit exchange of domain names. Don't want one? Let it expire and it goes back into the pool. No, you can't sell it, any more than you can sell your telephone number.

      But again, this wouldn't benefit the registrars, so it won't happen.

      --
      GCHQ Quantum Insert installed. If only our tongues were made of glass, how much more careful we would be when we speak
    6. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by EdIII · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I agree with you. What you suggest is similar to what is required outside of "cyberspace".

      However, the 30 days part is a little short. Perhaps even 6 months would be short. It seems you want a real substantive site, and sometimes getting the domain name first is an integral part of the business plan. Getting funding can take even longer, which is sometimes required to get a functional site online.

      Requiring that the DNS is not parked, and is in use by an actual server which gives up a page describing your site with contact information and a construction link might be enough.

      However, Web sites are not the only services which are used by a domain name either. I actually have plenty of domain names that are only used for email and other services too.

      So I like your idea, but you would have to carefully consider what are the requirements of a domain being considered "live".

    7. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by koreanbabykilla · · Score: 2, Insightful

      you CAN buy a phone number... Ive seen it done by some local pizza places.

    8. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by corbettw · · Score: 2, Interesting

      #1 is good, #2 sounds good on paper but would be hard to enforce (would Google just be a "page of ads"?)

      I'd add #3: increase the ICANN registration fee for each additional domain being created at once by $0.05 for the first 10, then $1.00 for the next 100, then $10.00 for each one after that. It would have negligible effect on anyone but squatters, and would have the added bonus of helping to fund ICANN. Squatters could still register on the cheap, just not tens of thousands of domains at once.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    9. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by nullchar · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Correct. Good 800 and 888 numbers are valuable, same with SMS numbers (google = 466453).

    10. Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive by Sentry21 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That idea falls apart when you start dealing with 'internet properties'. For example, my company owns .com and is going to build out a portal on it. Down the road, we may want to sell that to another company that already has an interest in the market.

      With your idea, we would be unable to actually transfer that domain name to the company, essentially tying ourselves to them in perpetuity, and requiring them to rely on us not going out of business. Bad idea.

  5. Generic TLDs caused the problems by btempleton · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's OK if the TLDs are brands (not generic like com, net or org) and there is some factor which limits them to resale use (otherwise we just punt the .com problem up a level.)

    The big mistake was having generics in the first place. Trademark law figured out hundreds of years ago you don't grant people monopoly ownership rights in generic terms. To get ownership rights in a term it must be non-generic, not have meaning other than the meaning you created in it. Thus nobody owns the word "Apple" with regards to fruits, but you can own it with regard to computers, or records. Even better are made-up terms like Xerox and Kodak.

    Anyway, we goofed by selling things like drugstore.com. We should fix that where we can, and not make it worse. If names are for resale only (you can't have your own sites in a TLD you own except for nic.TLD) and the names can't have any meaning for you to get a monopoly, then it can work.

    Things like .xxx and .mobi and there rest are bad because they have a meaning, and grant a monopoly in internet naming to that meaning.

    Full details are at http://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/

    --
    Has it been over a year since you last donated to the Electronic Frontier Foundation
    1. Re:Generic TLDs caused the problems by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      .mobi is bad for a different reason - it ties a specific service (web for mobile devices) to a domain name. Having a .xxx domain name isn't a terribly bad idea, but it needs to be done 20 years ago before all of the porn sites got .com domains. If domain names worked more like trademarks, with each TLD representing an area, then this would work well - you could have apple.computer and apple.music being different companies (well, until Apple Inc. licensed the trademark from Apple Records).

      The other part of the reason why this is potentially a bad idea is technical. The DNS scales very well because it's a tree. Hardly anyone queries the root servers (a couple of years ago 95% of queries were answered with NXDOMAIN) because their ISPs caching name servers store the locations of the most common TLDs (.com, .org, .cctld, etc.). The load is then spread around the TLD servers (and, again, most common queries are cached). Adding new TLDs increases the number of hits on the root servers, which makes those 14 machines a lot more critical, which is probably what ICANN is trying to do.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Generic TLDs caused the problems by techno-vampire · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Adding new TLDs increases the number of hits on the root servers, which makes those 14 machines a lot more critical, which is probably what ICANN is trying to do.


      I doubt that there are only 14 machines handling all root server requests for the entire world. I'm almost certain that each IP address goes to a load-balancing machine that controls a farm of servers. As you say, this scheme would result in far more use of those servers, meaning that the farms would have to be expanded.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
  6. ICANN showing their irrelevance by damn_registrars · · Score: 4, Interesting

    As if their total lack of real control over domain registration wasn't bad enough already, now they want to sell TLDs? Come on, we're close enough to arbitrary mish-mash as it is.

    The only good that could potentially come from this would be if the spammers found it worthwhile to start placing all their spamvertised domains under TLDs like .viagra and .pirate, so it would be easier to screen them.

    But we all know how likely that is..

    --
    Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
  7. Pointless by pla · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I fail to see the point of allowing new TLDs... How many do we have now, yet unless you have a .com, .net, .org, or .edu (and even then, most people stop at the first one or two of those), you may as well have a random unpronounceable string of characters, because no one will find you except via links.

    This will have one and only one useful effect - It will add more TLDs we can safely block as spam sources (yeah, suuuure we see a lot of legit .biz and .info email) without giving them a second thought.

    1. Re:Pointless by GleeBot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Or maybe we should just get rid of the entire second tier of domain names altogether. Why bother having .org or .com when you can just have .slashdot or .disney (to use some common examples from this discussion)?

      From a user interface perspective, I can see a lot of value in this. Asking people to remember if a site is a .org or a .com or a .net was probably a mistake to begin with.

      From an administrative perspective, it seems to open a big can of worms. The current TLD divisions at least have some sort of reasoning behind them. Arbitrary TLDs will put a lot more load on the TLD registry.

  8. I cannot wait... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    http://first.post

  9. Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by ALecs · · Score: 4, Funny

    I've had it with this hugely confusing system of names and TLDs, so here's my proposal:

    We drop DNS completely and establish a completely numerical system of finding things on the internet. Each machine will just get a simple number. No more wondering what everything is called - just type in the number and presto - you're there! No fighting, no trademarks, no registrations, just "Here's your number pal, have fun."

    Should work fine - right?

    1. Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by ShadowRangerRIT · · Score: 2

      How did this get an insightful mod? It was obviously going for funny.

      --
      $_ = "wftedskaebjgdpjgidbsmnjgcdwatb"; tr/a-z/oh, turtleneck Phrase Jar!/; print
    2. Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by jalet · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Just 'rm /etc/resolv.conf' and you're done.

      --
      Votez ecolo : Chiez dans l'urne !
    3. Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by klubar · · Score: 3, Informative

      This system worked for nearly 100 years with phone numbers. People got used to dialing just digits--and they published directories for those who didn't know the digits. With only 10 digits, nearly every family and business in the US could have there very own, private 10-digit number.

      There were a could of crazy schemes to add letters to the phone dial pad--but could you image how complex and confusing that would be! If you're older than 35, when you were growing up do you remember anyone looking for the letters on the dial.

      And in my day, we had real dials on the phone--none this fancy DTMF stuff for us.

    4. Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by CowboyNealOption · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Yeah, but then we would never find out who is stronger; will it be the soft drink maker, or the drug dealers who end up with the .coke domain???

    5. Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by belmolis · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nah, people will want certain numbers and not want others. East Asians won't want numbers with "4" in them as they're unlucky. Christian nutjobs won't want 666, the number of the Beast. Script kiddies will want 1337.

    6. Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... by dfm3 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Having your post modded "Funny" has no effect on your Karma, while "Insightful" does. So, there are a number of moderators who give out the insightful moderation to posts that they think are exceptionally funny or witty.

      Of course, maybe I'm giving the moderators too much credit. After all, why was your post modded troll? On second thought, maybe the moderators are smoking something today. ;)

  10. Worthless by EdIII · · Score: 4, Insightful

    For every new TLD that gets created it just adds that many more TLDs that company has to buy to cover their trademark, company name whatever.

    This is just ridiculous.

    www.compaq.xyz has zero value. I never even understood why .net was created either. I can understand .ORG, and maybe even .INFO, but not .NET.

    This only creates whole new markets for domain squatters. Who gives a crap about .MOBI? I certainly don't. I don't see any major wireless carriers using it on a regular basis. The mobile blackberry website I go to is still a .COM

    This is made all the more ridiculous by the fact the most people have a hard time differentiating between TLDs as it is. Even I have problems sometimes and put a .COM when it should be a .NET. The fact that those 2 websites are wholly different entities is just crazy.

    This is all about money going into the pockets of some people, and nothing about adding value to the Internet.

    There are only two, and will forever be only two, TLDs which have any value associated with them whatsoever.... .COM and .ORG. That's it. Everything else is reserved anyways, and you can substitute a country TLD for .COM and .ORG when appropriate.

    For those that would argue that point, ask yourselves honestly.... when you think of a domain name which TLD do you think of putting after it first?

    1. Re:Worthless by zifferent · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uhmm, I use a .NET

      I use it to point to my home NETWORK. While I would like to have .COM it was already taken by a COMPANY. Go figure.

      --
      cat sig > /dev/null
    2. Re:Worthless by Varitek · · Score: 4, Informative

      I never even understood why .net was created either. I can understand .ORG, and maybe even .INFO, but not .NET
      .net was originally for organisations that provided Internet infrastructure (backbones, ISPs, etc).
    3. Re:Worthless by EdIII · · Score: 3, Informative

      I disagree with the harmless part. This could be used for phishing and spamming.

      Imagine "customer.service08@paypal.comm". If the TLDs are truly opened up then paypal.comm will actually be real.

      Of course you already have this problem with domain typos and deliberate obfuscation, but this will exacerbate the problem. So it is not completely harmless, and in some instances not completely opt-in either.

      I can see your point about businesses not having to buy these new TLDs, but think about this from a business perspective. If you have even more than a couple hundred thousand dollars in sales per year, what is an extra $200-$300 dollars to grab the most popular TLD's to lock up your domain name?

    4. Re:Worthless by Noren · · Score: 5, Informative

      Your logic that .com was so large to make .net pointless to create makes no sense considering they were created at the same time. (January 1985)

      It took years for .com to take off, there are fewer than 100 currently registered .com domains that date back to the first two years of .com's existance. Both .com and .net were rare to see in the late 80s to early 90s anyhow- .edu was much more common on USENET, or IRC, or on internet games such as netrek. Hell, .mil seemed about as common as .com in the early days.

    5. Re:Worthless by dissy · · Score: 2, Informative

      www.compaq.xyz has zero value. I never even understood why .net was created either. I can understand .ORG, and maybe even .INFO, but not .NET. .net was originally reserved only for backbone providers and ISPs. .com and .org you clearly know, as well as the two letter ISO country codes.

      You forgot all about .edu .gov and .mil, all of which are TLDs actually run correctly (gasp, imagine that) and are limited like they all are supposed to be.

      Back in the day it was intended that if you were not a registered business, you wouldnt be allowed to get a .com
      That didn't work well, and they decided to make .com the 'default' and leave .org restricted.
      They managed .org and .net fairly well for a time, as well as the country code cctlds.

      Now its all about money.

      Bet youll be shocked to learn, back around 1990 or so, domains were free!
      It was i think some time around 1992 (give or take a couple years) when netsol first introduced $100 for 2 years, then later $70 for 2 years, finally allowing $35 for 1 year.
      Then openSRS came along and changed everything (for the better) and we have more registrars then just netsol,

      This is all about money going into the pockets of some people, and nothing about adding value to the Internet. This has been true the day ICANN took control of the DNS away from the original creators of DNS.

      There are only two, and will forever be only two, TLDs which have any value associated with them whatsoever.... .COM and .ORG. That's it. Everything else is reserved anyways, and you can substitute a country TLD for .COM and .ORG when appropriate. Again, you forgot .mil .gov and .edu.
      Just because more than .com exists confuses some people, doesnt mean the rest of us should suffer.
      If you want to play the pain game, just stop using DNS and go back to memorizing IPs.

      Clearly the only difference between a tld that works and serves an actual useful function, are those that are well defined for a specific purpose, and actually limited to that.

      You MUST be a 4 year college to get an .edu
      you must be a govt agency to get a .gov
      and you must be a military institution to get a .mil

      anyone and their dog can get a .com .org or .net.
      Those are the three that need to stop existing, because their existence is pointless and means nothing.
      If icann would actually restrict .org to only registered legal non-profit companies, and restrict .net for companys with at least two ASNs and multiple /20 or larger blocks, must have at least 4 backbone peers and at least as many downstream peers (customers) and you are allowed a .net and will officially be an ISP.
      Then it would make sense to have a 'fall through' which would obviously remain .com

      My point:
      Don't get rid of the whole system for not working, when in fact it works perfectly if it is just used correctly.

    6. Re:Worthless by sydneyfong · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know that the USA owns the Internet, but in a perfect world, the .mil, .gov, .edu, etc TLDs should be .mil.us, .gov.us, and .edu.us respectively.

      --
      Don't quote me on this.
  11. Zone Defense! by supersoundguy · · Score: 2, Interesting

    All I'm saying is I would not want to be a DNS admin if this goes through. DNS zones (and DNS queries I might add) would increase exponentially and DNS standard practice would fragment even more.

  12. Spammers, etc. will LOVE this by Iphtashu+Fitz · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This sort of thing would be a godsend for spammers & phishers. It'd make it so much easier for them to forge websites to try to scam people. Just imagine creating a TLD that's something like "comm" instead of "com" or "C0M" (zero instead of oh), etc. It'll create a security nightmare out of what is already a major pain in the @ss.

    1. Re:Spammers, etc. will LOVE this by ringman8567 · · Score: 5, Funny

      I thought the obvious TLD for phishers was .con

  13. Oh no. by PontifexPrimus · · Score: 2, Informative

    The openness of the new system could pave the way for a .xxx domain name, after more than half a decade of wrangling between its backers and Icann.
    Yeah, and it will surely work now... Look, guys, moving all the "smut" into an isolated corner of the internet will not work because a) nothing is isolated on the internet (if it exists, I can link to it) and b) no one will be able to define "smut" in any meaningful way. Oh, and I smell "think of the children" arguments approaching...

    That said - if this is implemented as written I also foresee a rush towards all short words of the English language and a subsequent loss of all mnemonic devices I use to remember websites:
    Now: "Hey, I want to go to Amazon. That's amazon.com, right?"
    Then: "I want to go to Newbookstore. That's newbookstore.books - no, wait, newbookstore.cheapbooks - or newbookstore.bestbookstore? Newbookstore.isgreat? Newbookstore.all? Newbookstore.shopping? Newbookstore.AAA?"
    Granted, the current TLD system kinda sucks, but opening up all kinds of words as possible TLDs will certainly bring no improvement (one thing I like to do when I browse for a product's availability here in Germany is enter the search term into google with the added restriction "site:.de". When German online presences will end in dozens if not hundreds of different words this easy way to identify them will be lost...).
    --
    -- Language is a virus from outer space.
  14. Focus on country code. by khasim · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Let each country manage its own servers.

    Does anyone in the USofA really care if Britain allows sitename.xxx.uk ?

    Does anyone in Germany care that there is a sitename.mobile.us ?

    All the .com and .org and .net and ... were okay when the Internet was tiny and mostly USofA only. But it showed a complete lack of forward planning. Decentralize the names. Let each country work it out. Particularly for the countries using alphabets that don't match 100% with USofA English.

    1. Re:Focus on country code. by CastrTroy · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It makes sense for small companies, but then large ones, who actually do operate all over the world, would have to but 75 different domain names to cover each country they operate in.

      --

      Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
  15. Re:DNS has failed anyway by linuxpyro · · Score: 2, Funny

    Hey, I don't know about you but I'm find just memorizing IP addresses.

    --
    Saying "I'll probably get modded down for this" in a post is the best way to get it modded up.
  16. Now I feel stupid by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Funny

    I read the summary 5 times wondering why the hell a ICANN was messing with TLDs. Ya, oh... the "other" tld... right. um.. moving along now...

    --
    Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
    1. Re:Now I feel stupid by Gewalt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Lately, I wonder that same thing. This used to be "news for nerds" and if you've never met someone who works in nuclear power, then you've no idea how just how nerdy someone can get.

      --
      Modding Trolls +1 inciteful since 1999
  17. Re:DNS has failed anyway by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Hey, I don't know about you but I'm find just memorizing IP addresses.

    IPv4 or IPv6?
    --
    #DeleteChrome
  18. Re:first penis by cp.tar · · Score: 2, Funny

    Eight equals D?

    I thought D equaled 13...

    --
    Ignore this signature. By order.
  19. Re:Good lord, why? by hummassa · · Score: 2, Insightful

    The TLDs, theoretically, categorize content (com for commercial, org for non-profits, etc.). They do a lousy job.

    Opening up the creation of new "categories" to anyone with a few thousand dollars will just lead to the .com rush all over again. Even a few thousand is no disincentive to multi-billion dollar companies. Just open up the root namespace. Instead of www.google.com, I type google. My email starts begin sergei@gmail. Let structured entities have subnames and do away with .com, .org. and .info altogether.

    First race: Which of MS, Yahoo or Google will snag ".search" or ".srch" first? It's not a matter of cost, since we know any of them could afford the price. It's just which one manages to phone it in first. The verb is "to google" :-) Google will win. :-)

    --
    It's better to be the foot on the boot than the face on the pavement. ~~ tkx Kadin2048
  20. Usenet-Like naming system by droopycom · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Anybody thought about using a co-opted naming system such as used for Newsgroups ?

    Think about it....

    1. Re:Usenet-Like naming system by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      slashdot.bork.bork.bork.bork.bork.bork.bork.bork.bork ?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
  21. How it might work... by lymond01 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I wouldn't be surprised if ICANN made the rule that your 2nd level name aliases the TLD. So Disney.com would also own *.disney.

    TLDs would no longer be categories, they'd just be the site name. http://ilovecats http://cnn http://teslamotors

    Makes sense to me.

    1. Re:How it might work... by Ma8thew · · Score: 2, Insightful

      What if two different people own, for example, pizza.com and pizza.net? Who gets the TLD then?

  22. Re:Bad Idea....Bad Bad Bad by Scorchio · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Never mind the levels of confusion it would be creating.

    Especially when I start registering common file extensions, like .exe, .bat, .jpg, .txt...

  23. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 3, Funny

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  24. They should make it a reflection of .com by vux984 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    They should simply make it a reflection of .com. If you own abcde.com you, and only you, are entitled to abcde TLD. There are couple hiccups with other tlds... but that could be resovlved:

    So if you have dotcom, and leaving .com off won't conflict with an existing TLD, you can pay another X$ fee and get it as a TLD. If you don't pay the fee, you don't get it, but nobody else can get it either.

    No massive influx of squatter problems, trademark problems, spammer problems etc. PennyArcade.com and only pennyarcade.com can get the PennyArcade TLD, CocaCola.com can get cocacola, microsoft.com can get microsoft... intel.com can get intel, ibm.com can get ibm.

    And ca.com, us.com, com.com can't get ca, us, and com respectively. They'll live.

    The idea of organizational TLDs was a mistake from the get-go. If we could just get rid of them entirely I'd advocate that. But due to conflicts between legitimate .net / .org / .com sites that's not really practical.

    So lets just do second best, and give the vast majority of .com's the option of leaving off the .com.

    1. Re:They should make it a reflection of .com by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So whitehouse.com gets .whitehouse? What about other collisions between .com/.org/.net/.edu/.gov/.co.uk/.co.au/.dot.dash-dash.dot.?

  25. Misquoted by the BBC by Myrddin+Wyllt · · Score: 5, Informative
    I actually listened to the original interview on Radio 5 Live (lunchtime today), and Dr Twomey's comments seem to have been taken out of context.

    Firstly, the interviewer started under the misapprehension that domain names were running out, which Dr. Twomey corrected, and said the problem was with IPv4 addresses. The following comments then followed, which concern the introduction of IPv6:

    Dr Paul Twomey, chief executive of Icann, told BBC News that the proposals would result in the biggest change to the way the internet worked in decades. "The impact of this will be different in different parts of the world. But it will allow groups, communities and business to express their identities online. "Like the United States in the 19th Century, we are in the process of opening up new real estate, new land, and people will go out and claim parts of that land and use it for various reasons they have. "It's a massive increase in the geography of the real estate of the internet." This is included in TFA, where it is implied that he was referring to domain names.

    The comments he actually made about DNS and TLDs were much tamer, mainly relating to internationalization and the use of unicode URLs.

    I listened to this while driving, so I may have misunderstood slightly, but there was definitely no sense of "OMG TLD free-for-all" in the interview as broadcast.

    --
    [ ]Half Empty [ ]Half Full [x]Twice as big as it needs to be
  26. Re:DNS has failed anyway by Haeleth · · Score: 2, Informative

    Nowadays we have a flat namespace where all names have a .com appended at the end. Nobody wants to use anything else
    Look up at the location bar of the browser window you are reading this comment in. Observe the lack of a ".com" in the URL. Observe how silly your claim now looks.
  27. Legacy names grandfathered? by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Seems to me that the current holders of legacy names in the flat namespace of UUCP Mailnet, who have retained their legacyname.tld counterparts in .com, .edu, .net, or .gov, should be able to get them as TLDs, and free of charge, as a continuation of the legacy.

    Failing that they should have first refusal.

    These names in this flat namespace predate the ICANN. They were also transferred intact into the electronic mail routing during the conversion to domain-style addressing. (Indeed, at some sites you can still get mail to them by addressing it to user@legacyname, and at many more by addressing it to legacyname!user.)

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  28. Re:DIBS!!!! round 2 by TaoPhoenix · · Score: 5, Funny


    wtf.FTW!

    --
    My first Journal Entry ever, in 8 years! http://slashdot.org/journal/365947/aphelion-scifi-fantasy-horror-poetry-webzine
  29. Re:Bad Idea....Bad Bad Bad by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    .html, .htm, .php, .asp ...

  30. Public comment opens today, closes tomorrow. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    ICAAN released a final draft for public comment today, June 22, 2008.

    Public comment closes June 23, 2008.

  31. Oh, registrars will love this. by Arrogant-Bastard · · Score: 3, Insightful
    Registrars are in favor of ANYTHING that will make money for them, no matter how much damage it does to the Internet. That's why they back domain tasting -- a completely abusive practice. That's why they back domain selling -- another completely abusive practice. That's why they backed the creation of .info (now so completely overrun with spammers that an increasing number of people have blacklisted the entire TLD), .mobi (pointless, since anyone offering mobile-only services could use a subdomain), .biz (so heavily blacklisted that not even spammers are registering domains there any more), and so on. It's why they continue to sell domains to spammers by the thousands. It's why they provide anonymized domain registration -- yet another abusive practice.

    So expect the registrars to get behind this quickly and completely. It'll make their cash registers ring, as typosquatters try to register variants of well-known domains and sell them to phishers, and legitimate domain owners race to beat them to it. In the end, a large amount of money will flow to registrars, every TLD except a few gTLDs and the ccTLDs will be blacklisted by default, and lots of people will own worthless domains that nobody really wants.

    And ICANN will congratulate itself on a job well done.

  32. dot parody by wytcld · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Under US law, parody isn't copyright infringement. So how about copying just about everything in *.com, doing a regex to replace certain words with obscenities, and reposting it as *.parody?

    Then when you search, why shouldn't Google assume you're as likely looking for the parody as The Real Thing?

    --
    "with their freedom lost all virtue lose" - Milton
  33. Re:Bad Idea....Bad Bad Bad by TheGreatGraySkwid · · Score: 4, Funny

    I expect Commander Taco to register http://slashdot.dot/ immediately upon its availability.

    --
    The Humblest Mollusk on the Net
  34. Worse by jmorris42 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It's worse. What they are proposing is nothing less than the total elimination of the current DNS and replacing it with AOL keywords. And raising the price a hundredfold while they are at it. And making sure it stays centralized under ICANN's control by cutting out the national registrars.

    Within six months of going live .com will be but a memory as every entity with enough budget to buy bandwidth to actually run a server on buys their own TLD, or keyword. Ford.com becomes ford. google.com becomes google, mail.google.com probably becomes googlemail or mail.google, assuming they don't just outbid every other webmail company and just have 'email' or 'mail.' Just send to userid@email.

    And domains will all be to the highest bidder with ICANN getting the money instead of domain squatters. Old legacy domains will be taken as a sign of a cheap bastard who can't afford a 'real' name.

    --
    Democrat delenda est
    1. Re:Worse by m50d · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I doubt it. Google, Ford et al. aren't stupid. They'll keep their .coms, as will everyone else, and the only people with other TLDs will be cybersquatters, just like with .biz and all the other fun stuff ICANN has dreampt up.

      --
      I am trolling
    2. Re:Worse by paganizer · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Here is why I think you are wrong.
      I've been trying to read up on this, because I'm sort of puzzled as to how, exactly, they are planning to do this.
      What I think they are doing is something similar to the way that .US TLD used to be run before '02; I would go into details on that, but when I went to wikipedia it was...wrong.

      What I can see them doing is leaving the primary nameservers alone, and just adding a pointer to the registrar of the new TLD's; when a user surfs in, depending on how their DNS is set up, they would hit one of the big 13, which would point them to the nameserver delegated by the owner of the "vanity" TLD, .disney, which would probably handle full resolution from that point. In order to actually be able to get the vanity TLD, the person applying for it would not only have to show that they have a good reason for getting it, but that they could handle the DNS aspect of it, as well. I'm sure that godaddy & others would offer that as a service, but what I think I'm reading, and what I hope they mean, is that a DNS hosting service wouldn't be an option, the person or group getting the TLD would have to agree to run the nameserver in order to get it.
      That would reduce the overall number of vanity TLD's quite a bit, not add any excessive strain to the root servers, AND provide an easy mechanism to block the inevitable spammers, in addition to insulating them from legal repercussions; if someone wanted to register .goatse, for instance, the whole responsibility for what came from that TLD to the rest of the web would be with the person who registered it. Unless, of course, the guy running .goatse signed a contract with a guy named Tod Isney to forward DNS traffic to his computer at todisney.goatse...
      Hmm. rambling here, on a theory that probably isn't right.
      well, regardless, I think this ties in somehow with the recent efforts to get common carrier status removed from providers of internet services, the way Usenet is currently getting killed.

      --
      Why, yes, I AM a Pagan Libertarian.
  35. Re:DNS has failed anyway by Daimanta · · Score: 2, Funny

    I don't know! WAAAAAAARGGHHH!

    --
    Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
  36. Re:More TLD's Then by amRadioHed · · Score: 3, Funny

    Why shouldn't Mike Disney be able to buy disney.plumbing? It would be confusing since he's an astrophysicist.
    --
    We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace