Google Applies For Dot-LOL Domain

the problem is by tian2992 · 2012-06-02 04:35 · Score: 5, Funny

cats.lol does not have the same ring to it sadly...

Re:the problem is by rrohbeck · 2012-06-02 04:51 · Score: 3, Funny

So who has the .cats domain?

--
thegodmovie.com - watch it
Re:the problem is by mattiaza · 2012-06-02 05:05 · Score: 5, Informative

.cat is the regional TLD for Catalonia. Unfortunately, lol.cat is already taken.
Re:the problem is by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:47 · Score: 0

Guess who applied for the .dog domain?

Google Applies For Dot-LOL Domain by TomNext70 · 2012-06-02 04:36 · Score: 0, Redundant

LOL!

A virtual gold rush like Bitcoin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:39 · Score: 0

Waiting for the story where hackers break into the ICANN servers and steal 1000s of new domains.

Re:A virtual gold rush like Bitcoin by buanzo · 2012-06-02 06:53 · Score: 0

You mean criminals with hacking skills?

--
Buanzo Consulting - 15 Years of GNU/Linux experience, for you.
Re:A virtual gold rush like Bitcoin by maxwell+demon · 2012-06-02 22:40 · Score: 1

No, in the story they will just be hackers.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

185k Quid, not dollars by AlabamaMike · 2012-06-02 04:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Thus making it a bit more expensive (although not to Google!)

--
Pimpin' all the Karma Hoes!

Re:185k Quid, not dollars by similar_name · 2012-06-03 17:05 · Score: 1

Sadly the article is wrong. It is 185,000 dollars.

All I can say is... by zotz · 2012-06-02 04:43 · Score: 1

Surely you know...

--
FreeMusicPush If you want to see more Free Music made, listen to Free

I hope they don't get it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:43 · Score: 5, Insightful

I'm one of those people who is sorry to see the erosion of the TLD. It's bad enough that individuals are shut out of the process by the rules and absurd fees. But under the new rules Google has zero right to it. I hope they don't get it.

Re:I hope they don't get it by Amouth · 2012-06-02 04:55 · Score: 3, Insightful

Agreed the rules/absurd fees associated with these are meant to force the smaller crowd out. the company i work for is small, but we are among the top in our field and i could see a TLD for several processes and standards that we have created and consult on over the years, but at 200k a pop we can't justify even one.

--
'...if only "Jumping to a Conclusion" was an event in the Olympics.'
Re:I hope they don't get it by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-06-02 05:03 · Score: 4, Insightful

Honestly, the TLD system has been broken for a long time. There should probably never have been TLDs without country codes, for one thing. And enforcement on TLDs that were supposed to be reserved for specific purposes was always lousy -- I remember seeing clearly commercial sites with .net TLDs popping up in the mid-90's.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:I hope they don't get it by Ihmhi · 2012-06-02 05:58 · Score: 5, Insightful

It'll just turn out to be a massive waste of money.
Hell, you can even take your average user and have them look at a website... almost no one takes .biz, .info, .us seriously. .com, .net, and .org is where it's at.

--
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Re:I hope they don't get it by TubeSteak · 2012-06-02 06:03 · Score: 3, Insightful

It may have been broken, but at least it was understandable.
Between url shorteners and (now) vanity domains, who the fuck will really know where a link is taking them?

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:I hope they don't get it by Samantha+Wright · 2012-06-02 06:58 · Score: 2

I'm pretty sure this is like when Google bid pi billion dollars for Nortel's patents. It looks to me like agree with you that the TLD namespace is being polluted. If they get .lol, it'll prove the system is stupid, if not outright broken.

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:I hope they don't get it by paxcoder · 2012-06-02 09:32 · Score: 1

Maybe I'm uninformed on the matter, but if you ask me, they should drop top level domains altogether. Everyone has a .com. Few other things really "exist": .org + some popular at the moment (cc, ca, what have you). Imagine perhaps a blank global TLD, and make the trailing dot optional. Then make a distributed, global DNS system. Sit and wait till those with extensions fade to obscurity ("translating" them to new TLDs would also be an option). Let the bidding begin. Then after the dust from the auctions sets, make each new domain exponentially more costly to obtain. As to who gets the profits, depends on the implementation (server owners get it?). If the system is truly distributed, it could go towards feeding the world (Country that needs the money the most, by assesment of all other countries, gets it - so, start with African countries. We need such a system of charity anyway. Disclaimer: I haven't thought this through thoroughly, I'm just throwing it out there.
Re:I hope they don't get it by nlitement · 2012-06-02 11:48 · Score: 1

Then after the dust from the auctions sets, make each new domain exponentially more costly to obtain.
So basically what you're suggesting is something close to a pyramid scheme?
Re:I hope they don't get it by swalve · 2012-06-02 14:07 · Score: 2

Yeah, some organization has my lastname.name domain, and I thought it would be a slam dunk to challenge it. Fax them a copy of my driver's license where it shows that my name is lastname, and that the org is an organization and not an individual, and done. But no. I'd have to come up with multiple thousands of dollars to pay off some arbitrator.
Re:I hope they don't get it by paxcoder · 2012-06-03 01:22 · Score: 1

No, x in that f(x) is not a number of globally registered domains, it is the number of domains owned by an individual/company. That is, for every subject, registration of the first domain is cheap. The more *they* buy, the more they pay for the next one. Thus, moderation is advised (and cybersquatting eliminated). Again, just an idea, I don't claim it's bulletproof. For example there may be places on earth where starting a "company" is extremely easy. Also, abuses such as having employees register domains in their names are possible, and would have to be regulated, which wouldn't be convenient. At least transferring to the real subject behind the buy could easily be regulated.
P.S. During the auction, it'd be necessary to differentiate two kinds of costs: "base"(same as after the auction), and "bid"(whatever the highest bid is). The company would pay the bid cost of course, but the next base value is independent of it (function f is independent of the bid values).
Re:I hope they don't get it by Xest · 2012-06-03 03:15 · Score: 1

I'm still wondering where this money is even going. When you consider all the corporations that will have to buy one of these, and all the similar and related TLDs to their name and proudcts this is going to net ICANN literally many billions of dollars in profit yet ICANN is meant to be non-profit. Where is that money going? Is each member of staff at ICANN just going to get billion dollar paychecks or what?

Great... by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-06-02 04:44 · Score: 5, Insightful

This just goes to show how flawed this system is. When a for profit corporation can "own" a non-trademark general use term as a TLD, it's a clear sign that the system is open to abuse.

Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:52 · Score: 0

It was already "owned" by a corporation (albeit a non-profit). The system is obviously flawed, but I don't know how this is suddenly a clear sign to anyone.
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:53 · Score: 0

hmm. i was under the impression that only registered trademarks could be registered as a new custom tld..... which is still bad enough, but a free-for-all like this is horrible.
whatthe.fuck
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:53 · Score: 2, Insightful

Is it really any different than granting full operation of .com to Verisign?
Re:Great... by 6ULDV8 · 2012-06-02 05:10 · Score: 1

Just wait for the free .google ot .lol domain rush. Yes it's open to abuse, but it always has been.

--
Pull my finger for my public key.
Re:Great... by Dexter+Herbivore · 2012-06-02 05:12 · Score: 1

Firstly, I made the distinction between NFP and FP corporations. Secondly, I never said "suddenly". Admittedly, I should've made my point clearer and stated "another" sign that the system is open to abuse.
Re:Great... by a+whoabot · 2012-06-02 05:15 · Score: 3, Interesting

They don't own it; they don't even "own" it. Edit /etc/hosts and point "google.docs" whithersoever you wish. ICANN just own a list to which people subscribe. If you don't like their list, don't subscribe to it. They control nothing of importance in that capacity except what you let them control.
Re:Great... by cultiv8 · 2012-06-02 05:20 · Score: 3, Interesting

If lol was used historically on usenet, and Google owns Usenet, then couldn't Google claim ownership of it? Interestingly, AOL tried to trademarke LOL in 2003 but never filed a use statement...

--
sysadmins and parents of newborns get the same amount of sleep.
Re:Great... by mounthood · 2012-06-02 05:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

This just goes to show how flawed this system is. When a for profit corporation can "own" a non-trademark general use term as a TLD, it's a clear sign that the system is open to abuse.
Money and lawyers are the traditional tools for dealing with contention. Would it be better if we pushed all DNS disputes through the (US?) trademark system? It would be great if there were a technical solution but that doesn't seem to exist. If we use IP addresses without DNS names it would only make memorable/easy IP ranges the issue of contention (and 42.42.42.42 is already taken.) So, just like email addresses, the naming scheme won't change until we completely replace the system with something new -- and maybe not even then.
A tangent: a co-op style domain system would be interesting. Buy a TLD like "*.commons" to run it. Let anyone in and have a member voting system to resolve disputes (think ugly-but-functional Wikipedia politics). Give the names away free, with the use of a TLD wide SSL cert, or setup self-signing for name holders. A network effect could make it viable, and donations could pay for root servers.

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Re:Great... by icebraining · 2012-06-02 05:35 · Score: 1

Uh, Google just applied for it, ICANN still hasn't made a decision, so we have no idea if a corporation "can own a non-trademark general use term as a TLD".

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Great... by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-06-02 05:44 · Score: 2

You could move to namecoin. (Not trolling, I swear.)
Re:Great... by ve3oat · 2012-06-02 06:03 · Score: 1

Is it too late to apply for .tld?
How about .icann?
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:08 · Score: 0

Yeah, good luck with that.
Re:Great... by fbjon · 2012-06-02 06:12 · Score: 3, Insightful

Controlling the defaults is a lot of control, even if it is nothing like complete control. Internet Explorer tells the story.

--
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:28 · Score: 0, Insightful
A few problems...
- I have windows. What is /etc/hosts?
- I have a mac. Isn't that in dscl something something?
- I have iOS. My ass is pWNed by Apple.
I could continue. /etc/hosts may provide you with a local override, but it does nothing for discovery. It does nothing for managing changes to IP addresses. The DNS design is just broken from a "decentralized net" point of view. I think the only way we'll get a new system is if the EU succeeds in totally fucking it up and create their own DNS (with blackjack and hookers).
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:30 · Score: 1

Yeah, but to make namecoin work... you need a co-op run .bit TLD (or someone with fat stacks of cash running it as a benevolent dictator, or whatever); else people have to run fragmented DNSes using a non-official TLD (and hoping nobody buys that TLD from ICANN, or mass confusion), or apply some longer suffix (such as namecoin-suffix.dot-bit.org)
Re:Great... by slimjim8094 · 2012-06-02 06:56 · Score: 0

Windows: %SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Mac: /etc/hosts (it's just Unix, although /etc is a symlink to /private/etc)
iOS: See above, since iOS is OSX on ARM.
Not disagreeing with your premise, but the point is that every OS has the ability to do this. That's even disregarding the ability to run your own DNS server with whatever you want.

--
I have developed a truly marvelous proof of this comment, which this signature is too narrow to contain.
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:59 · Score: 4, Informative

If lol was used historically on usenet, and Google owns Usenet, then couldn't Google claim ownership of it? Interestingly, AOL tried to trademarke LOL in 2003 but never filed a use statement...
Google doesn't own Usenet, they bought Deja News (a Usenet provider). No one can own Usenet, any more than one can own the Internet. It's a decentralized service, and functions almost exactly like the Internet in general, with peers sharing posts between eachother... That's why I can subscribe to a giganews account and my posts still show up in Google's usenet service.
Re:Great... by nmb3000 · 2012-06-02 07:00 · Score: 2

I have windows. What is /etc/hosts?
C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts
Unfortunately that is also the arcane spell to summon APK -- get away while you still can!

--
"What do you despise? By this are you truly known." --Princess Irulan, Manual of Muad'Dib
/)
Re:Great... by mounthood · 2012-06-02 07:05 · Score: 1

Namecoin still uses money for registration, it just uses bitcoin currency. See: http://dot-bit.org/Namecoin

To register a name, you must own some namecoins (NMC, the internal cryptocurrency used by the software).

--
tomorrow who's gonna fuss
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 08:02 · Score: 0

Yep, and you'll be the one person on Earth with a different configuration than everyone else.
Stop acting like this is a solution.
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 08:19 · Score: 0

It's not "just a list". The Domain Name System is useless if you suggest people simply "don't subscribe to it".
Re:Great... by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-06-02 08:20 · Score: 1

True, but it's not like bitcoins are expensive. It's like $2 to get a namecoin and you keep it forever, no?
Re:Great... by rastoboy29 · 2012-06-02 09:34 · Score: 1

Mod parent up. An alternative to DNS may need to be in our future.

--
expandfairuse.org
Re:Great... by CannonballHead · 2012-06-02 10:40 · Score: 1

IP addresses, perhaps?
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:09 · Score: 0

I learned a new word today: whithersoever. I'm gonna use it everywheresoever!
Captcha: billions. That's how many times I will use it.
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 18:27 · Score: 0

i'd like to register sure.icann & youknow.icann and put up half done websites.
Re:Great... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 20:25 · Score: 0

Of course you're free to point any name to wherever you want on networks you control. This is completely useless when actually using the internet for communication, because you can only communicate with machines and people who subscribe to the same list. You might as well take a cardboard box and paint "INTERNET" on it and say you own the internet.

League of Legends by Muramas95 · 2012-06-02 04:46 · Score: 2, Funny

Google is buying the league of legends domain, awesome.

Do not evil... by gmuslera · 2012-06-02 04:47 · Score: 3, Funny

and then they say "all your jokes are belong to us"

Re:Do not evil... by MrHanky · 2012-06-02 05:49 · Score: 0

http://dont-do-ev.lol/
Re:Do not evil... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-03 16:54 · Score: 0

Google: we are the LOL in .lol ... oh wait!

So who has applied for by rossdee · 2012-06-02 04:47 · Score: 4, Funny

.WTF and .OMG

Re:So who has applied for by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:55 · Score: 1

.FAIL
Re:So who has applied for by thegarbz · 2012-06-02 11:11 · Score: 4, Funny

.FAIL
ICANN has reserved that one for personal use.
Re:So who has applied for by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:33 · Score: 0

.FOO and .BAR
Pfff! .NOOBS !
Re:So who has applied for by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 12:02 · Score: 0

I seriously hope dot-web doesn't get taken. Then again, I don't see TV shows using dot-web as a "555" type website when doing their fictional websites.
Then again, I don't see all modern movies using fictional phone numbers when doing their movies. Like in the movie Hackers, the number pushed on the telephone by a guard. Thank goodness for DVRs and slow-play.
Re:So who has applied for by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 15:49 · Score: 0

You joke, but wait till they reveal who applied for .omg

Oh, you... by Briareos · 2012-06-02 04:53 · Score: 1

So they're doing it just for the lulz, errr, lols?

np: Sóley - Smashed Birds (We Sink)

--

"I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

Re:Oh, you... by History's+Coming+To · 2012-06-02 05:52 · Score: 1

In this case it's the alternative "lots of love" acronym, it's essentially a mirror of .xxx

--
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Re:Oh, you... by Samantha+Wright · 2012-06-02 07:10 · Score: 1

I think you'll find that's .xoxo

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!

.docs? by anilg · 2012-06-02 04:55 · Score: 1

I think Microsoft may have something to say about that. Is there an auction for a domain that two or more parties want? Is there anyway that Apple could bid on (and win) .google?

--
http://dilemma.gulecha.org - My philospohical short film.

Re:.docs? by Daniel+Dvorkin · 2012-06-02 04:57 · Score: 4, Funny

Microsoft should be perfectly happy with their ownership of .crash, .virus, and .bsod.

--
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Re:.docs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:57 · Score: 0

Not for something that is trademarked. If there's a trademark then the trademark owner gets dibs.
If there's no trademark and it's not a domain that will cause confusion, the domain goes to the highest bidder.
Re:.docs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:05 · Score: 0, Flamebait

I wonder if Apple applied for .elitistsimpletons
Re:.docs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:29 · Score: 0, Funny

you could apply for .troll
Re:.docs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:30 · Score: 0

So the beetles could get .apple?
Re:.docs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 18:29 · Score: 0

no, grannysmith does
Re:.docs? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-06 04:12 · Score: 0

then you could apply for dontfeed.troll

"No, Mr. Ellison, Google does not run Oracle.LOL by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:56 · Score: 1

Although some of our engineers may have posted content to it during their 20 percent time. And we don't keep records on everyone who has contributed anonymously to the section on "Larry's Management Style."

BTW the domain is for sale! We'd be happy to sell it to you. The price is 1 billion USD.

Saw a cat do this once by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:02 · Score: 0

I can haz domain?

Fitting for Google by toddmbloom · 2012-06-02 05:05 · Score: 0

.lol describes them perfectly.

Redundant by Hentes · 2012-06-02 05:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.

Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:32 · Score: 0

The should have gone for .oogle, then the obvious g.oogle.
Re:Redundant by rgbrenner · 2012-06-02 05:35 · Score: 3, Interesting

Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.
well, yes,.. that would be stupid. But luckily there are other words in the dictionary
search.google
docs.google
shopping.google
mail.google
images.google
Re:Redundant by icebraining · 2012-06-02 05:38 · Score: 4, Informative

Why not just "google"? Like "uz": http://uz/

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Redundant by houghi · 2012-06-02 05:41 · Score: 4, Informative

Or just gooogle. Once you own the TLD, you do not have to use domains. You just use the TLD.
Just like they now use google.com and www.google.com

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Redundant by swillden · 2012-06-02 05:43 · Score: 1

Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.
But mapping http://google/ to their search engine would make a lot of sense.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Redundant by Hentes · 2012-06-02 05:50 · Score: 1

Wow, you can actually do this?
Re:Redundant by IAmGarethAdams · 2012-06-02 06:33 · Score: 1

But search.google, mail.google, news.google and code.google isn't redundant. It's maybe *pointless* when users are used to mail.google.com and news.google.com, especially when they still haven't gotten rid of the redundant `www.` from their main URL
Re:Redundant by Crudely_Indecent · 2012-06-02 06:38 · Score: 1

Obviously, they have the opportunity to clean their url.
http://google/
This gives them the opportunity to move the query string to the sub domain position, like:
http://docs.google/
http://adsense.google/
http://reader.google/
With some DNS wild cards, they could even move variables to sub domains.

--

"Lame" - Galaxar
Re:Redundant by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 08:05 · Score: 0, Informative

Yes, with the DNS system you can add A records to zones. They then get resolved to IPs and you can browse them. Amazing I know.
Re:Redundant by thegarbz · 2012-06-02 11:14 · Score: 1

Or just gooogle.
Given the price I think even Google didn't apply for that name. Or any of the other misspellings:
www.gooogle.com
www.gogle.com
At $185000 a pop that's a lot to cover stupid users.
Re:Redundant by Phroggy · 2012-06-02 18:11 · Score: 2

Wow, you can actually do this?
Yep. The root servers point the zone to whichever nameservers are authoritative for that ccTLD, and those nameservers are free to serve up whatever they like, including A records for the uz domain itself.
However, since it is generally expected that nobody does this, you can't expect all clients to do what you want them to. For example, when you type "uz" into Safari's address bar, it doesn't recognize this pattern as an FQDN so it tries a couple of other behaviors - first appending your search domain, then if that doesn't resolve, appending the .com TLD and taking you to http://www.uz.com/ which is not the same site at all. You can override this behavior by adding a dot at the end of the FQDN.

--
$x='S24;r)>63/* h@<5+oZ)32"5cz';$me='phroggy'x$];
$x=~y+ -xz+\0-Tx+;print$_^chop$me for split'',$x;
Re:Redundant by maxwell+demon · 2012-06-02 22:50 · Score: 1

Interestingly, this URL already takes me to Google.

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
Re:Redundant by swillden · 2012-06-03 01:43 · Score: 1

Only because your browser munges it.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

check your units by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:10 · Score: 0, Redundant

$185,000 != 185,000 pounds

Re:check your units by ub3r+n3u7r4l1st · 2012-06-02 06:53 · Score: 1

Steam has done it before. It is the Valve's version of Verizon math.

--
New Economic Perspectives

I can see it now... by Sav1or · 2012-06-02 05:14 · Score: 1

seriouswebsitename.lol

I think someone should apply for .sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:21 · Score: 5, Funny

Could be a best-selling TLD

Re:I think someone should apply for .sucks by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 08:14 · Score: 1

Somebody with money seems to agree:
http://voxpopregistry.com/

Too bad they didn't apply for .cheezburger.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:23 · Score: 0

Then you could sign up for has.cheezburger, and set up a subdomain like can.has.cheezburger

Re:Too bad they didn't apply for .cheezburger.. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:53 · Score: 5, Funny

ICANN.has.cheezburger
FTFY

Goodbye, useful metadata by Narrowband · 2012-06-02 05:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

I wonder at what point gTLDs are going to make it harder to recognize a URL when it comes up in text. Right now, I expect it's not too hard to write code that identifies a URL as a URL and sets up a link. But when my website name can be AUTOEXEC.BAT, things might get a bit different.

Re:Goodbye, useful metadata by jones_supa · 2012-06-02 05:47 · Score: 1

Some African kid should set up libc.so.
Re:Goodbye, useful metadata by KiloByte · 2012-06-02 05:54 · Score: 1

DOS batch files don't have their own TLD, but I'm using a Perl one...

--
The creatures outside looked from Alt-Right to Antifa; but already it was impossible to say which was which.
Re:Goodbye, useful metadata by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:00 · Score: 0

Already taken, but unused.
Re:Goodbye, useful metadata by lostfayth · 2012-06-02 06:09 · Score: 1

That's a problem with a solution, URIs (and usually, context as well) manage to differentiate perfectly there. Otherwise, COMMAND.COM would be a much bigger problem than AUTOEXEC.BAT.
Re:Goodbye, useful metadata by maxwell+demon · 2012-06-02 22:53 · Score: 1

How is that different to command.com?

--
The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.

Pounds not dollars by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 05:35 · Score: 0

From the article, it is 185,000 pounds, not dollars. Which means Google payed even more money to submit the .lol domain (more like $285,000).

SNL got it right... by kupan787 · 2012-06-02 05:44 · Score: 1

So close to owning http://www.clownpenius.fart/

SNL Video Reference

whitehouse.lol ? :) by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 06:19 · Score: 0

whitehouse.lol, I'm soooooooooooooooooooooo there...

Obviously got it wrong by dkleinsc · 2012-06-02 06:20 · Score: 1

They should have applied for .lulz

--
I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/

Google can apply for whatever they want by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 07:54 · Score: 0

I suspect that Google wish that gTLDs did not exist, but ICANN's profiteering has forced their hand - it would be ridiculous for them to not claim .google, for example. .lol seems like a combination of an inside joke and a possible business venture - they can probably get their $185,000 back for it from a third party if they wish.

In my opinion, the gTLDs is the strongest possible argument for letting another organisation govern the internet. ICANN are making the owners of coke.com, pepsi.com and tens of thousands of other similar names pay through the nose for something that does not need to exist. The only real beneficiary is ICANN. It's greedy and it's wrong.

Ironically, Google decides the importance of gTLDs by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 08:06 · Score: 1

If Google chooses to give a heavy weighting towards sites that use gTLDs, then the sites will become immensely valuable. OTOH, if Google decide that gTLDs are essentially ICANN spam, they will be dead in the water.

Given that Google has only applied for four, when they could have budgeted for hundreds or even thousands, my guess is that .com will continue to be the top dog for the foreseeable future.

screw TLD's by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 08:26 · Score: 0

we should just have a directory of IP's mapped to names and anybody can use any name they want but they have to pay for an IP.

Simple really, not as big bucks but simple and will work. What ever happend to alternative directory systems?

This is just a yanky farce. The yanks always fuck up everything they touch.

They fucked up he internet now too. Give it to the UN, where it belongs.

my dns server will not look up these new TLDs by OrangeTide · 2012-06-02 09:12 · Score: 0

I have already worked out the configs so that these silly TLDs cannot be used on my network.

--
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire

Just .lol? by saikou · 2012-06-02 10:45 · Score: 1

Shouldn't they also ask for .ioi, .101 and .l0l? :)
While having a whole TLD dedicated to trolling Google seems unlikely, I can see someone getting .ioi for "legitimate" reasons and then offering .lol domain owners to buy the same ones, or suffer from links to ".IOI" :\

--
Hyperom.com

onion by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:35 · Score: 0

With things like this, i want to file for the .onion TLD

.bit by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 11:57 · Score: 0

Let's just all pray for an enlightened bitcoin millonaire who's bid for .bit ... and delegate it to actual Namecoin blockhain.

.co.ck!!! by rHBa · 2012-06-02 12:56 · Score: 1

Who needs porno TLDs when you have Cock TLDs!?!

I know, €250 is a lot to pay for a regular domain name but really, if you can get a Cook Islands domain with .co.ck, it's worth every penny!!!

That's nice. by jhobbs · 2012-06-02 16:14 · Score: 1

I always appreciate when rich people have a sense of humor.

ICANN HAZ ROOTZONE PLZ? by Arancaytar · 2012-06-02 20:18 · Score: 1

Sorry, sorry, sorry.

Chrome search queries as frontend to Google TLD by mattr · 2012-06-03 02:01 · Score: 2

I don't know about you but I have seriously gotten used to asking questions / searching google by just typing into the location bar (on Mac Chrome and on Android).

Google could semantically reorganize the words in all queries and put them into the .google name space that would be cool.

So popular searches like "dyi projects for home" (which I discovered by just typing the words in and seeing autocomplete suggestions) might be mapped by google into:
http://results.home.dyi.projects.google/
and then google could automatically create:
http://community.home.dyi.projects.google/livechat/channelnumber
http://market.home.dyi.projects.google/yourbrandname
http://users.dyi.projects.google/yourgoogleaccountname
http://projects.google/yoursourceforgeprojectname
http://videos.home.dyi.projects.google/ -> maps to youtube
etc.

Re:Chrome search queries as frontend to Google TLD by HapSlappy_2222 · 2012-06-03 17:36 · Score: 1

Bummer that you spelled diy (Do It Yourself) wrong. :(

Great ideas though.

Verisign is a government protected monopoly by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-04 03:47 · Score: 0

Verisign is a disgusting company that is a government sanctioned and protected monopoly. Their control of .com and .net guarantees that everyone who works there sucks down huge salaries. Don't believe me? I interviewed there a while ago, 7 years experience, $135K offer. Who knows what it would be now... $150K? And this is for a 40-hour a week job. When I interviewed there, it was like a ghost town. At 10am, half the engineers, strike that, PROGRAMMERS, hadn't even come into work yet.

Americans seem to accept this (Verisign monopoly) with no problem or debate. My impression is still that Americans in general work very hard but the technical staff at Verisign do not impress me. Note, I am not a U.S. citizen but I am a green card holder.

Why isn't the rest of the world upset with this money machine? Where welse do we have a model like this where a company is GUARANTEED billions of dollars for "keeping the lights on".

Slashdot Mirror

Google Applies For Dot-LOL Domain

125 comments