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.

16 of 198 comments (clear)

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.
  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. 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.

  6. 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.
  7. 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.

  8. 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
  9. 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
  10. 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.

  11. 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.
  12. 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
  13. 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!
  14. 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

  15. 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.
  16. 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.