System For Applications For New gTLDs Still Down

itwbennett writes "After almost a week the ICANN system for applications for new generic top-level domains (gTLDs) is still down, and it is unclear when it will reopen, although ICANN said it would provide an update by Friday, according to an IDG News Service report. The system was taken offline after a software glitch was found that 'resulted in some users being able to see some other users' file names and user names.'"

Comments

Nobody is buying them. That's the real problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Can't sell something nobody wants.

Re:Nobody is buying them. That's the real problem

[elp]

Rumour is that there are something like 1400 applicants at $180k a pop that's well over $250 million.

And remember

[rs79]

The #1 priority for ICANN is "stability of the global internet"

Not Broken, "Fixed"

[guttentag]

ICANN kept introducing new gTLDs that it alleged the world needed, when all those new gTLDs did was create confusion for the general population and liability for corporations and organizations that felt pressured to race to "buy" their name again with the latest gTLD ending to "protect" their image. It was a money grab on their part. Simply shameful. Now the system through which this nonsense was created is down?

I wouldn't call that broken. I'd call it "fixed." Glad they finally got around to it.

Re:Not Broken, "Fixed"

[Anonymous Coward]

There is a difference between the machine language (xyz.com) and the user's language (*$#@*_). Until ICANN accepts this (not realizes, they already realize this, it's just a money grab. What they should to do is move the "web" to a tld'less environment but that would hurt their bottom line so they won't. It's too bad the distributed DNS systems have no way of dealing with spam but alas. What ICANN should be doing is moving to to said tld'less systems. There is no reason beyond asinine one's that some random person should have to know to put *.XYZ* after their desired destination. But again ICANN is just milking it, not practicing stewardship or some shit.

Re:Not Broken, "Fixed"

[TheRaven64]

I have a simple test for whether a new TLD is sensible: the fucksgoats test. If you create a new .fucksgoats TLD, then lots of people who already own .com domains will buy the .fucksgoats variant to prevent other people using it. If the majority of the people who would buy a domain under a new proposed TLD would also buy the .fucksgoats domain (and for the same reason), then it should not be approved. We saw this with .xxx: most of the people registering .xxx domains already owned the .com or similar version and didn't want someone else either introducing brand confusion (if they were already hosting porn) or associating porn with their brand (if they weren't).

Re:Not Broken, "Fixed"

[WrongSizeGlass]

I have a simple test for whether a new TLD is sensible: the fucksgoats test.

I'm pretty sure that Facebook would sue you for copywright and/or trademark infringement if you setup a fucksgoats TLD. See, Facebook and fucksgoats both start with the letter 'F' and have two syllables, and I'm pretty sure Facebook claims to own anything that meets those criteria. Also, Facebook and fucksgoats share half of the same letters - FACOK - which Facebook will determine to be too misleading for their users. And finally, fucksgoats and fuckssheep are almost identical and Facebook has already laid claims that they - and they alone - should be allowed to fuck their sheep.

Re:Not Broken, "Fixed"

[Dishevel]

Sounds like you are just moving the TLD up one.
Not having to type some ".XYZ" after you want to go to coke.com? So you just want them to type coke?
Is that not what ICANN is doing.
You are an AC idiot and you have no clue as to how the internet works. The whole reason the internet naming system worked as well as it did was because of the few number of ".XYZs" out there. ICANN is doing what you suggest in reality and in my opinion (Not so humble) you are both fucking idiots.

KIickstarter?

[Required Snark]

Someone could go on Kickstarter and raise some money for an open source project to do it for them. They could hand out tee-shirts saying "I helped fix the Internet".

Re:KIickstarter?

[Tom]

Frankly, someone should go on Kickstarter and collect money for a sustained DDoS to keep it down. When all else fails, and permanent harm is immanent, something needs to be done and the fine details of legality sorted out afterwards.

Re:KIickstarter?

[WrongSizeGlass]

Someone could go on Kickstarter and raise some money for an open source project to do it for them. They could hand out tee-shirts saying "I helped fix the Internet".

How about using Kickstarter to get enough funding to buy one (or more) of these ludicrous vanity TLD? Then we can vote on which one(s) to buy. There's already been a suggestion to establish a fucksgoats TLD here on /., but I'm pretty sure there may be a few other suggestions. What would you like to see as a vanity TLD?

Re:KIickstarter?

[Lithdren]

I say we pool money togeather for Slashdot to buy its own vanity TLD.

www.slashdot.dotslashdotwwwslashslashdotdotcom should do nicely.

Good, keep it offline

[Anonymous Coward]

The new system they're proposing of handing out arbitrary branded TLDs is a joke. It's a slap in the face of internet architecture. One of the DNS's most defining and useful properties is that it's a hierarchical system with meaning. The ccTLDs we have today make sense. The historical com/net/org/mil TLDs work. I'm even somewhat ok with the addition of some of the newer gTLDs that have a fixed, broad, categorical meaning that will contain lots of independent subdomains (e.g. ".xxx").

But the very idea of ".pepsi" and ".mcdonalds" is just sad and stupid, and it's a clear fear-based money-grab on the part of those intimately involved in selling TLD/DNS services, all of whom are in bed with each other and the ICANN. ICANN, get your heads out of your asses!

In case you haven't figured it out

[Khyber]

ICANN is pretty much a legalised RICO racket.

And the fact you collective millions haven't joined me in the lawsuit is proof that you're not smart enough to be part of this community.

Re:In case you haven't figured it out

[Tom]

No, it's proof that we understand what you write: It's a legalised racket - therefor, a lawsuit doesn't stand a chance. Changing the laws is the correct approach, but it takes too long and by then the damage is done (you don't think any TLD will ever be decomissioned, do you?).

Oh, btw. - can we please stop calling them gTLDs? They are anything but "generic". That exactly is the fundamental problem with them. They are in fundamental opposition to the very concept of the DNS, that it breaks down into ever more specific parts from highly generic ones. You can argue that .com and .org and .net have lost their original meanings, but they are still very generic and fit thousands upon thousands of domains. How many 2nd level names will we see within .citibank, .kfc and .disney?

Re:In case you haven't figured it out

[WrongSizeGlass]

Oh, btw. - can we please stop calling them gTLDs? They are anything but "generic". That exactly is the fundamental problem with them. They are in fundamental opposition to the very concept of the DNS, that it breaks down into ever more specific parts from highly generic ones. You can argue that .com and .org and .net have lost their original meanings, but they are still very generic and fit thousands upon thousands of domains. How many 2nd level names will we see within .citibank, .kfc and .disney?

I agree that these 'vanity' corporate TLDs are the opposite of generic, but I'm sure there are some who are going to drop $185,000 to try to set up their own TLD simply to extort money from companies trying to protect their corporate identities or to try to become a cool alternative to .com, .net, etc.

The company that registers a generic enough TLD, such as .cloud, .web, .service, will be able to harvest a nice registration fee (and annual renewals) from any company that doesn't want someone else grabbing it first. And let's not forget the high price during the 'land rush' phase of registration could bring small fortunes for domains like internet.cloud (and many others).

A new popular TLD - let's say .zombie became popular - that sells tens of thousands of domains will be a gold mine. If a company like Facebook buys the .facebook or .fb TLD they can sell domains to companies or vain celebrities for $1,000's a piece.

Those this is definitely a racket by ICANN it's also going to turn out to be another opportunity for companies or domain squatters to try to profit off others.

Re:In case you haven't figured it out

[danaris]

How many 2nd level names will we see within .citibank, .kfc and .disney?

Actually, given the number of different Disney domains and subdomains I already get technically-not-spam from, there might be quite a few there.

Dan Aris

If they can't get it to work...

[msobkow]

If they can't even get the registration system working, how the hell do they expect the general population of DNS servers to deal with a flood of spurious TLDs?

The whole concept is bass-ackwards compared to the design of TLDs and should never have been approved in the first place.

ICANN was always anti-new-gTLD

[billstewart]

ICANN's first jobs when it seized control of the domain business were to require True Names for domain name registration and to stop the IETF Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC)'s plan for expanding the gTLD space. The IAHC plan initially proposed seven fairly lame new gTLDs (which was fine, because you want to test out the expansion process on names that nobody really cares about, like .firm, using them as a scratch monkey before you sell the valuable gTLDs, like .inc, .llc, .ltd. .gmbh, and .sex, because you only get to do that once. The Trademark Gods really didn't like the idea that they might have to buy up names in more namespaces, and wanted to make sure that if there was ever a trademark dispute involving a domain name that they'd be able to identify who to sue. And they certainly didn't want to allow any sort of experimental alternative name structures, though .museum sort of sneaked in, nor did they want to have actual public-interest representation on their board no matter what their initial charter said about electing members.

I don't think having a near-infinite number of gTLDs is a good idea; it's basically equivalent to losing the top level of hierarchy and having everybody under .com.
But having a few dozen or a hundred gTLDs can work just fine - for instance, the US trademark registration system has something like 34 categories of businesses, so you can have a "Coke" company selling soda and another "Coke" company selling coal products without them infringing on each other. ICANN being the kind of organization that they are, they'll of course try to monetize the **** out of the gTLD registration process, which isn't going to be an optimally rational division of the name space, but will at least keep it from getting totally out of hand.