Google Applies For Dot-LOL Domain

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Google Applies For Dot-LOL Domain

Posted by timothy on Saturday June 2, 2012 @04:32AM from the binary-code-of-ells-and-zeroes dept.

judgecorp writes "Google has applied for the .lol domain in ICANN's sale of generic top level domains (gTLDs). Google also asked for .google, .docs, and .youtube at a cost of $185,000 each, in the round of applications which has finally closed. A glitch in the application system may have leaked some of the applicants' data to other applicants."

78 of 125 comments (clear)

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

cats.lol does not have the same ring to it sadly...
1. Re:the problem is by rrohbeck · 2012-06-02 04:51 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  So who has the .cats domain?
  
  --
  thegodmovie.com - watch it
2. 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.
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!
1. 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.
1. 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.'
2. 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.
3. 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)
4. 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!
5. 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!
6. 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.
7. 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?
8. 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.
9. 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).
10. 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.
1. 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?
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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
7. 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
8. Re:Great... by ZeroSumHappiness · 2012-06-02 05:44 · Score: 2
  
  You could move to namecoin. (Not trolling, I swear.)
9. Re:Great... by ve3oat · 2012-06-02 06:03 · Score: 1
  
  Is it too late to apply for .tld?
  How about .icann?
10. 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.
11. 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)
12. 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.
13. 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
  /)
14. 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
15. 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?
16. 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
17. Re:Great... by CannonballHead · 2012-06-02 10:40 · Score: 1
  
  IP addresses, perhaps?
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"
So who has applied for by rossdee · 2012-06-02 04:47 · Score: 4, Funny

.WTF and .OMG
1. Re:So who has applied for by Anonymous Coward · 2012-06-02 04:55 · Score: 1
  
  .FAIL
2. 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.
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
1. 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.
2. 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.
1. 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.
"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.
Redundant by Hentes · 2012-06-02 05:10 · Score: 4, Funny

Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.
1. 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
2. Re:Redundant by icebraining · 2012-06-02 05:38 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Why not just "google"? Like "uz": http://uz/
  
  --
  Dilbert RSS feed
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. Re:Redundant by Hentes · 2012-06-02 05:50 · Score: 1
  
  Wow, you can actually do this?
6. 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
7. 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
8. 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.
9. 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;
10. 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.
11. 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.
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
1. 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/
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.
1. Re:Goodbye, useful metadata by jones_supa · 2012-06-02 05:47 · Score: 1
  
  Some African kid should set up libc.so.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
SNL got it right... by kupan787 · 2012-06-02 05:44 · Score: 1

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

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

ICANN.has.cheezburger
FTFY
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/
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
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.
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
.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.
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.
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.
1. 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.