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."

20 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 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.
    2. 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?

    3. 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.
    4. 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.
  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 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.
    2. 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.

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

    http://first.post

  4. 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
  5. 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

  6. 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.

  7. 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
  8. 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...

  9. 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
  10. 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. ;)

  11. 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
  12. 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.

  13. 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