Slashdot Mirror


First New Generic Top Level Domains Opening

umdenken points out that the first batch of generic Top Level Domains will go live within the next several days, including .bike, .guru, .clothing, .holdings, .singles, .plumbing, and .ventures. (Early access began Jan. 29th.) ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade says there is currently huge demand for ICANN to reopen their program to let companies run their own gTLD. He said, "Many, many brands and many, many communities didn't know about the GTLD program. I get significant amounts of questions about when can we open the next round, because certainly there is a bit of angst that if Canon [who applied for the .canon gTLD] uses this to do an incredible mass customization campaign to win users to their product, I'm sure the brand next to them will say "Why aren't we doing this?" So I do believe this will snowball. But many will find a .com or whatever they have now will be good enough, and I believe that one excludes the other." He also said the $185,000 price tag to do so is likely to drop.

34 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. Just saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is a terrible idea for the internet but a great idea for the businesses (eg. custom marketing like the summary mentions) and ICANN (because who wouldn't love large wads of cash!)

    Can anyone give a few points on how this is good for the general internet user?

    captcha: complete

    1. Re:Just saying... by game+kid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The general internet user gets to be tracked, advertised-to, and generally fucked over as usual. But the address bar will look swag with that .bike in it, yo.

      --
      You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
    2. Re:Just saying... by mikael · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Now you can make your domain name look like a USENET discussion forum:

      alt.fashion.goth.clothing
      comp.languages.cobol.programmer.guru

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    3. Re:Just saying... by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Can anyone give a few points on how this is good for the general internet user?

      The presence of a custom TLD on a website is an instant indicator for me that the website is almost certainly a flash in the pan marketing project, not being taken very seriously by its owners, and probably not worth my time to click on the link.

      Pluses all-round I'd say.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    4. Re:Just saying... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, I could think of a few reasons why Apple should not have .apple. One of them being that there's allegedly a fruit by that name that even allegedly has older rights to that name.

      But in general, what good would it serve? So FINALLY, after all those years, the internet community learned that their company can be found at "www.company.com". What would we gain by getting ".company" now instead? Aside of having to reteach everyone? There is exactly zero net value to the internet users.

      What? Oh, we could be certain that .company is actually $company? We already can if $company gives a shit about its domain name. It's trivial for $company to win the rights to "www.company.com" from the average domain squatter. And if they don't give a fuck, well, then .company won't save you from a scammer either because guess what, they can register that themselves. It's fairly trivial to open up $company in some country the name of which ends in -stan and claim the TLD. If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?

      So what exactly do you expect from .company? Personally, I see exactly zero benefit. Well, aside of the benefit for the ICANN because everyone HAS to buy his .company TLD lest some scammer does.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    5. Re:Just saying... by FatLittleMonkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It's clear that ICANN wants to create a bunch of privately owned TLD registrars. Good or bad, they have been pushing that barrow for several years now. But the current scheme hides those registrars behind idiotic faux-generic TLDs as if they were the original .com .net .org .edu .gov .mil. I'm just saying that it's more honest if you want to allow companies to buy private TLDs, then use their actual names.

      ICANN has this cringe against letting companies use their names as TLDs, but want a bunch of registrars running private TLDs. It's self-contradictory and results in the current stupidity.

      If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?

      $185,000 non-refundable application fee plus $1 million per year. Plus whatever additional rules ICANN wants to attach. This isn't intended for the average company. If it went beyond, say, a hundred company TLDs, I'd raise the annual fee until the number drops below that. If it was below 25 coTLDs, I'd reduce the fee until it rises.

      Let me put it another way: Why should the island of Tuvalu be allowed to have a TLD, (actually leased to and run out of a ISP in Canada IIRC), but not Google? (Or rather why should a small ISP in Canada have the entirely for-profit .tv TLD, when Google/Apple/Microsoft/Yahoo/ATT/Amazon/etc can't?)

      Or for that matter, why should Nauru, population 9000, but not California, population 38 million?

      --
      Science is all about firing a drunk pig out of a cannon just to see what happens.
    6. Re:Just saying... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Because some nuclear power somewhere thinks that those countries should have sovereignty, and no other nuclear power wants to seriously dispute the issue.

      Countries are countries because there is a military protecting them. As countries, they have sovereignty. They make their own laws, and so it makes sense to give them a TLD on which their laws apply.

  2. Generic? by tgv · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nobody knew about GTLD? Perhaps that's because .bike isn't really "generic", is it? And it's pretty Anglo-centric too.

    1. Re:Generic? by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      This american would prefer free sex markets

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  3. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by mysidia · · Score: 5, Interesting

    why do we even have .com or .org or .net on the end.

    To identify which registration authority the domain name was created under.

    Also... to distinguish domain names from just any other name.

    I'll give you an example: "BOOKS"

    No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS. If you type BOOKS into your browser address bar; you should not be summarily redirected to whoever happened to get there first ---- logically, you would be presented search results based on relevance.

    The authority system allows, there to be a BOOKS.COM under the Commercial registration authority... that might be a book store, Or an accounting vendor....

    There can be a BOOKS.ORG, under the non-profit organization reg. authority ---- that might, for example, be a library-related organization.

    Then there can be a BOOKS.EDU under the education reg. authority --- that domain might, for example, be an institution of higher learning that specializes in the library sciences or authorship/book writing.

    Such domains a .INFO; were added later, and Don't really fit logically in the original DNS system.

  4. Landrush scams by MindPrison · · Score: 4, Informative

    Domain peddlers are going bonkers now, I tried to get my name as a .guru, but it ended up costing a small fortune...so I steered away. At first...40 bucks seems nice for a 1 year .guru name, but then there are "early registration fees" so called landrush fees that can cost several thousand dollars, and they even have hefty admin fees that costs several hundred dollars...stay away from the scammers, and they're plentiful right now.

    --
    What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
  5. Just block them by Kaenneth · · Score: 2

    I have as much trust in a random TLD as a site in the .cx TLD; and plan to just block/ignore addresses from them.

  6. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS.

    If all TLDs were random six letter combinations, or local geographic regions, I'd see your point, but with the TLDs we have now, using your logic, ONE books.edu for all institutions of higher learning in the world is about as dumb as one books.

    Either make a lot more of them, or get rid of them... doing nothing isn't solving your problem.

  7. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    That's the idea, anyway. In practice .com became such a buzzword everyone wanted one.

  8. Re:$185,000 is Raqueteering by JanneM · · Score: 4, Funny

    $185,000 is Raqueteering.

    I knew tennis could be an expensive sport, but I had no idea...

    --
    Trust the Computer. The Computer is your friend.
  9. Or.. by hydrofix · · Score: 3, Insightful

    .. maybe it would be fairest to just cancel this whole private gTLD expansion lunacy?

  10. Re:About the cost... by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It will. The business approach is obvious: First you set the price ridiculously high, to extract as much money as possible from those who must have their domain at any cost - businesses with trademarks to protect, mostly. But there are only so many of those, so once sales dry up you gradually lower the price to broaden the market. That way everyone pays exactly as much as they can be made to pay, maximising revenue.

  11. i have a better idea by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 2

    how about we just drop the farse that are TLDs? the only TLDs with any credability are .gov and .edu because those are regulated. all the other TLDs are just one big bag of everything else. nobody wants to get a .net if .com is taken because of the confusion that ensues.

    --
    Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
  12. one word by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    .bs

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
  13. .com.au by Jack+Griffin · · Score: 2

    Here in Australia, we have regulations (socialism!) that require anyone registering a .com.au domain to have some connection to the name in their registered business eg if I want to register bike.com.au, my business needs to have demonstrable connection to the bike business somehow. Sure some trash slips through the cracks, but on the whole works well to keep .com.au domains relatively reliable. Not sure why more registrars don't enforce similar requirements.

  14. Meh by _Shad0w_ · · Score: 2

    Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.

    --

    Yeah, I had a sig once; I got bored of it.

  15. popcorn at 11 by Tom · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Welcome to the end of a meaningful domain name system.

    Yeah, I know they tried raping it before, but the world largely ignored .biz, .info, .aero and I even forgot what the others were. Or have you seen more than two domains in those TLDs in the recent years?

    But brands, that was a gold mine. Advertisers are parasites and they will be happy to convince their marks^H^H^Hcustomers that they really, absolutely must have a fitting TLD now. And since in large corporations (that have the money), the people they talk to are also marketing dudes, it'll work.

    It's a huge scam, but it'll rape the usefulness of the DNS hierarchy. Too bad we didn't put everyone within ICANN to the sword while there was still time.

    --
    Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
    1. Re:popcorn at 11 by matfud · · Score: 2

      there are a fair few .aero domains but you are unlikely to come across them unless you are in the industry (and many .aero owners also have more common TLD's).

    2. Re:popcorn at 11 by dissy · · Score: 2

      Excluding all ccTLDs, the original gTLDs are: .arpa .com .net .org .gov .edu .mil and .int
      The first expansion added: .aero .asia .biz .cat .coop .info .jobs .me .mobi .museum .name .pro .tel and .travel.

      Then ICANN opened this new gTLD program. The listing of new gTLDs approved are here

      I had the idea to use it for pre-blacklisting each and every one in my mail and web filters, but opted instead to go with a whitelisting approach hoping for easier maintenance (Thus the easy copy/pasting of the list at the top - sorry, I don't have link references anymore)

      The applicant status page makes for better comedy however, as it lists the existing company name that requested the new top-level instead of the fake company name setup to handle domain registrations. (Currently the english TLDs start at page 4)

      Most make sense from the twisted world view of trademark holders, but some are true WTF moments...

      Amazon for example requested some obvious ones like .amazon , .buy , and .cloud
      But they also have some strange requests like .bot, .fire , .silk , and .pin

      Amazon requested a whole 76 TLDs, Google requested 102, Microsoft only 11, and surprisingly Apple only requested .apple

      ICANN bitched and moaned about not wanting to create .XXX for like 10 years, but they have already approved and delegated things like .dating , .sexy , and .singles

      Also interesting is they already approved and delegated .democrat but have yet to even just approved .gop

      Filtering on similarities shows .app has 14 requests, .art .bay .home have 10, and even 5 requests for the .tld tld :P

      A whole 6 pages worth of results have objections linked to them, which sounds promising except there are 56 pages total :/

      Sadly there is way too much money involved for much success of a massive grass-roots preemptive blocking and agreement to not allow such TLDs to resolve.
      But I have no qualms about doing so and only white listing individual and specific domains if any of our customers or vendors go the retarded route of making their primary email or websites use one of these.

      I'd give our non-english speaking friends a break, because despite the great technical problems involved at least they have a valid reason wanting a TLD in their native language.
      Beyond that however, the rest so far look like money grubbing land grabs, stupid branding, or obvious scamming/spammer havens.

  16. Re:For all the USA haters on Slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The root of the DNS zone is still handled by the US government. ICANN has a consultative role and suggests modifications, US can still veto any suggestion and can nuke a whole country out of DNS if they so chose.

    "Inventing the Internet" gives you the same rights over the international Internet as "inventing the English language" gives over English speakers. If not for the DoD project, the computers of the world would have been connected using a descendant of Minitel, BBSes etc. It would have been completely different at the protocol level and completely similar at it's uses and porn availability.

  17. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by houghi · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Why go for the example 'books'. Why not other common names like 'windows' or 'apple'.

    I still ask why there were .com, .net and .org. I will elaborate a bit more. Why aere ther .com, .net and .org next to the country codes?

    It would have been better (hindsight is always 20/20) to just have gone with the country codes. That way each country would have been able to do whatever they please to do. Do you want to give nobody a domain? Good for you. Do you want to limit id to just your citizens or just businesses or to everybody who pays you? Great.

    The argument against this is often what about things like linux.org or similar things. When I look at the whois data, I see a US addrss, so it would have been linux.us or even linux.org.us or linux.inc.us or whatever they want to come up with.

    And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
    http://us/org/slashdot/tech//directory/subdirectory/file.html (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.

    Anyway, we can contemplate on what could have been, but now we have this mess and it will have to do.

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  18. Re:.Plumbing WTF by y5t3m · · Score: 2

    They connected up the "series of tubes" that run the new gTLD's

  19. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by reikae · · Score: 2

    I think that the fact that you had to point out the double slashes shows why replacing the dots with slashes is a bad idea.

  20. Re:Can I register .n or .jb? by maxwell+demon · · Score: 2

    What about a top level domain .corn? Of course only to be used for things related to agrarian products. ;-)

    --
    The Tao of math: The numbers you can count are not the real numbers.
  21. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by dissy · · Score: 4, Informative

    And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
    http://us/org/slashdot/tech//d... (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.

    Actually in the 80s that is pretty much how it was.

    UUCP mail was routed from one mail server to another to another before finally (hopefully!) landing in a users mail spool on a server they frequently checked more than others. This one done with whats called "bang paths" as they used ! as the separator, and the route was listed left to right ending with a double colon and the username.

    Even at the time DNS replaced hosts.txt on the ARPAnet, there were still other connected networks like BITnet and CSnet using different protocols that used mixed forms of routing paths, and neither network required NSF approval to join like the ARPAnet did.
    BITnet was IBMs VMS network, and anyone that had a VAX with the RSCS software installed and could afford a leased line was able to get on the network and get data to/from the arpanet.
    There was a serious perceived threat from these other protocols, most of which lacked a unified or centrally managed naming lookup scheme (although that is exactly what RSCS was, although only for VAX)

    At the time each protocol pretty much only looked out for their own, except for DNS which was advertized as "generic" and "non-proprietary" as only IP was required. DNS was also an open standard like IP and TCP. That was enough for DNS to "win" and become the one true naming system.

    I'm not sure why they decided to use a right to left hierarchy beyond just trying to differentiate themselves from existing protocols...
    But it doesn't follow the URL/URI standard because that wasn't to be invented for another 10 years or so.
    As you say, hindsight is always 20/20

  22. Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway by terrab0t · · Score: 3, Informative
    According to Wikipedia, Tim Berners Lee mostly agrees with you on the URL format. From the Wikipedia page:

    Berners-Lee later regretted the use of dots to separate the parts of the domain name within URIs, wishing he had used slashes throughout. For example, http://www.example.com/path/to/name would have been written http:com/example/www/path/to/name. Berners-Lee has also said that, given the colon following the URI scheme, the two slashes before the domain name were also unnecessary.

  23. Nah, can make it 5. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    We could just move .gov to .com.

  24. Re:I Want A TLD Too! by terrab0t · · Score: 2

    There is no new TLD in that domain name. It's actually available. Register thatnoonewillevervisit.com and setup the obscurespecializeddomain.dreamedupbymarketingidiots subdomain for it.

  25. This is just another round of the scam by Arrogant-Bastard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As everyone knows, there was and is no actual need for these TLDs. Just like there was no need for .xxx. Just like there was no need for .mobi. Just like there was no need for .info. The entire process is driven NOT by the communal needs of the Internet, but by ICANN, which is now completely controlled by registrars -- registrars who are always looking for new/expanded revenue streams.

    There WAS a time, as I'm sure some folks will remember, that "one entity-one domain" was the rule. That time is long gone, as it drastically restricts registrar profits. Now? It's not uncommon for single entities to control hundreds to hundreds of thousands of domains. I've been researching this issue, and have looked at about 60M domains so far: EASILY 90% of them are crap. They're owned by speculators, typosquatters, "landing page" operators, clickthrough scammers, and on and on and on. I suspect that as I expand my work, that percentage won't change much. In other words: we could delete 90% of the domains out there with no appreciable effect on the Internet.

    This latest expansion is merely an attempt to continue the same game -- but with outrageously prices and profits.

    Here is my recommendation: learn how to use DNS RPZ. As each one of these TLDs is introduced, add it to the list so that you effectively make it disappear from your view of the Internet. Encourage others to do the same. After all, you aren't required to resolve any domain or group of domains -- so don't. If enough of us do this, we will make these domains essentially worthless. (Why? Because without DNS resolution in place, end users won't be able to reach them with web browsers. MTAs that check for domain existence -- which they should -- will reject all mail to/from them. And so on.)

    The Internet doesn't need this junk. YOU don't need this junk. So make it vanish.