Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Hundreds of New TLDs Coming — Question Is When

Posted by timothy on from the getcher-squatter-gun-ready dept.

netbuzz writes "A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains could be headed for the fast track to implementation or something more akin to the back burner, depending on what ICANN makes of public comments due to close at the end of this month. At most immediate issue is whether the process of granting these new TLDs will feature a pre-registration process that proponents say is necessary to accurately gauge the depth of interest and skeptics fear as moving too fast too soon. Says one critic: 'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.'"

8 of 103 comments (clear)

  1. fatboy slim be happy by ionix5891 · · Score: 4, Funny

    slash.dot

  2. purpose ? by Tom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    To me, the major issue appears to be that ICANN doesn't have a clear vision on what the purpose of TLD is.

    In the past, we had two types of TLDs: One for geographical/political designation (country TLDs) and one for organisation-type designation (.com/.net/.org/.mil/.edu).

    The ones they added, and which I think everyone agrees were utterly stupid, are a mix of lobby-dumbness and content designation (.info, .pro, .aero)

    What we need is a clear view on what the meaning of the TLD should be. But since we don't get that, because ICANN doesn't have a vision at all, we'll end up with a mess of crap, no matter which way they turn.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:purpose ? by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 3, Informative

      I'm forced to disagree with your thoughtful comment. They know quite well what the _purpose_ was, and what it can be. What they're confused about is how to make money off of it. ICANN is funed, primarily, by registrars. But the opportunity to open up new revenue by selling off additional, duplicate hostnames in multiple domains is apparently irrestible, and they seem unwilling to take responsibility for managing the dominant ".com" domain properly. So they're delegating responsibility for it, and intend to collect the revenue from the top-level domain owners.

      There are technological and social reasons to want more domains, but I'm afraid they're swamped by the potential for expanding the revenue stream.

  3. Re:Dumb, Again by stephanruby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Reduce the price of maintaining a domain name, and it's only going to increase the instances of domain-squatting.

  4. Re:Bluring the lines by Philip_the_physicist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Agreed. IM(NS)HO, it would be better if the only gTLDs were .arpa, .tel, and .int. .eu should be deprecated as it isn't a country, and EU sites belong under eu.int. .gov and .mil should be under .us, and so probably should all the other gTLDs, except .cat (I have no idea what to do with that). For the other gTLDs, there should be the option of free transfer to the corresponding .us domain, and a ban on any further registrations of transferrals of ownership, so that they die out.

    In this way, local prejudices, customs, and taboos can be respected by the registrar, without all the arguments over .xxx and so on.

  5. Down with the gTLD! by transami · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I have a much better idea. Get rid of the gTLDs altogether. They are an arbitrary crutch to begin with. Without them we could have freeform domain names and end the silly quabbles over myname.everytldthereis.

    What they are up to now looks more like damn money making scheme.

    --
    :T:R:A:N:S:
  6. Re:.con by Professor_UNIX · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Oh it's just not .con, they want to let you use any unicode characters in the domains so you'll essentially have characters that look exactly like ".com", but they're different unicode characters. THAT will be when the phishing gets nasty if someone slips something like that through.

  7. Further reducing ICANN's credibility? by grantdh · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This could have a fascinating result:

    1) Organisations sign up to host their own "so cool" root domain, expecting that lots of companies will be "forced" to register their key words in the new root domain

    2) Companies finally wake up and say "WTF? We don't need this shit" and don't buy in

    3) Lots of organisations who did #1 realise they're not going to be able to make enough to pay ICANN let alone cover their costs

    4) Scumbuckets come in and start domain-squatting, setting up crap sites, etc

    The above may well lead to:

    5) People stop trusting domains and use search engines more (it's happening more & more now anyhow - most people can't remember even simple domains and use search engines to find them)

    6) More legal cases for domain-squatting and illegal use of registered trademarks/keywords/etc

    7) No more "gold rush" mentality for the opening up of new TLDs

    8) Bad press for ICANN and fewer groups willing to take part in the next "all new territory" TLD funding drive (leads to less $$$ for ICANN)

    Yeah, I'm just dreaming. ICANN is rapidly joining the RIAA & MPAA as a prime example of a bloated, self-serving organisation that's doing all it can to hang onto a way of existance that's no longer viable :(

    --

    I left my body to science, but I'm afraid they've turned it down...