Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Britain Gets National .uk Web Address

Posted by timothy on from the actually-top-level dept.

hypnosec (2231454) writes 'Starting today businesses and individuals in the UK will be able to register a new national web address (".uk") and drop their existing ".co.uk" or ".com" suffix in favour of a shorter and snappier domain name. The entire process along with the transition is being overseen by private yet not-for-profit organisation Nominet, which has already started notifying existing customers with a ".co.uk" domain of their chance to adopt a ".uk" domain. Nominet will reserve all ".uk" domain names, which already have a ".co.uk" counterparts, for the next five years offering registrants the chance to adopt the new domain and to keep cyber squatters at bay.'

76 of 111 comments (clear)

  1. In other words by rujasu · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Everyone with a .co.uk domain name is now basically obligated to register (and pay for) another domain name within the next five years to avoid confusion.

    1. Re:In other words by just_another_sean · · Score: 2

      Exactly, and better get a .biz, .info, .someothertldthatwillmakeusmoremoney while they're at it...

      When I got an email offering us a .ninja tld for our business domains I died a little bit inside...

      --
      Creationist Textbook Stickers Declared Unconstitutional by CowboyNeal
    2. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ...and the guy with co.co.uk will control their old .co.uk domain.

    3. Re:In other words by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      When I got an email offering us a .ninja tld for our business domains I died a little bit inside...

      LOL ... I can think of so many cool domain names ending in .ninja it's sad ... My friend Mark says that he once saw a ninja totally uppercut a kid just for opening a window. ;-)

      Sadly, I'm sure it will be for things more like "projectmanagement.ninja", so, yeah, I guess that might make you die a little inside.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    4. Re:In other words by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's much worse than that because a) nobody wanted a .uk TLD in the first place and b) they're about 4 times the price of a .co.uk domain FOR NO GOOD REASON (other than a cash grab, obviously).

    5. Re:In other words by Krymzn · · Score: 2

      They're "obliged", not "obligated". Much obligated for the opportunity to point this out.

    6. Re:In other words by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yeah, looks like a lot of registrars are price gouging - according to Nominet, the wholesale price is the same. And definitely don't ever use 123Reg because they'll even charge you to switch. Fuckers!

      The only registrar I've found thus-far with the same price for .co.uk and .uk is Mythic Beasts although they're a bit pricey unless you're registering for 10 years.

      Gandi.net don't appear to have .uk pricing yet unless I'm missing something!

    7. Re:In other words by afidel · · Score: 1

      I wonder if piratevs.ninja is taken? =)

      --
      There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order. Starting now.
    8. Re:In other words by rujasu · · Score: 1

      The words are synonyms. No, I don't care what your style guide tells you.

    9. Re:In other words by CodeArtisan · · Score: 1

      The gandi pricing appears to be $9/year for both co.uk and uk.

    10. Re:In other words by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

      The gandi pricing appears to be $9/year for both co.uk and uk.

      Truely no Bullshit(TM) - good for them! :D

    11. Re:In other words by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      Yeah that one already exists: http://www.projectmanagement.n...

  2. Dibbs by BigIrv · · Score: 1

    on F

    --

    --Good morning fellas; Hand me that thing; Boy, this work's hard; Guys, break's over.
    1. Re:Dibbs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      goodl.uk

      Dibs on goatse.uk!

    2. Re:Dibbs by Andrewkov · · Score: 1

      Crap, fc.uk is already taken..

    3. Re:Dibbs by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      of course it is, by French Connection, a fashion retailer with an interesting acronym.

  3. Moneygrabbing Nominet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    As a Nominet member I voted against this (twice now, they were defeated the first time, then ignored everyone). Perhaps someone from Nominet can tell me why somedomain.uk is pre-allocated to whoever has somedomain.co.uk rather than the owner of somedomain.org.uk.

    1. Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Yes I completely agree.

      In my case, the .co.uk address is a cyber squatter. Why should he get priority over a genuine domain?

    2. Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet by Anubis+IV · · Score: 1

      For us non-UK folks, can you explain the distinction? I mean, obviously they are different domains, but what about org.uk suggests it should be used instead of co.uk?

    3. Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Not a UK person, but I believe that they're complaining about the fact that, for instance, the person who registered london.co.uk (currently a domain parking page) gets preference for the new london.uk domain over the person who registered london.org.uk (apparently "The London Organization", which appears to be a Visitors/Business organization to promote the city of London.) Or why the (again, domain parking) owner of oxford.co.uk gets preference for obtaining oxford.uk as opposed to the University of Oxford, which has oxford.ac.uk registered.

    4. Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet by ledow · · Score: 2

      Cyber-squatters pay more money for domains than you ever will.

      Hence, Nominet has really just offered a product preferentially to it's prime (if unethical) customers.

      And to think we complain about ICANN not being completely "International"... Nominet doesn't even represent the interests it's supposed to at all...

    5. Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet by kylemonger · · Score: 1

      What I wonder is why does it matter. Ever since the first decent search engine came into being, guessing domain names stopped being a necessity. london.uk or london.org.uk or london.frog matters not a whit to me if it's the site I'm looking for. And any decent search engine will distinguish them quite easily. A proliferation of TLDs makes it easier to get the name you want and still have it be short enough to be easy to type. It will eventually make a shambles of the hierarchical structure of DNS but there are ways to fix that too.

  4. French Connection better be quick by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    ... or they'll be battling, e.g. Frederick Connors in the courts.

  5. domain hack by peter.kowalchuk.reid · · Score: 1

    I've been waiting for this. I pre registered kowalch.uk for making awesome email addresses. -peter@kowalch.uk

    1. Re:domain hack by Megane · · Score: 1

      But doesn't he really need an Indonesia domain for "peter@kowalchuk-re.id"?

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
  6. That reminds me.. by Virtucon · · Score: 2, Insightful

    "The new phonebook's here! The new phonebook's here!"
    "Page 73, Johnson, Naven R. I'm somebody now! Millions of people look at this book every day!"
    "This is the kind of spontaneous publicity, your name in print that makes people!"
    "Things are going to start happening to me now."

    - The Jerk

    --
    Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
  7. What about Ukraine? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Surely they deserve .UK more than United Kingdom, a farce of an aggregation of separate "countries" who love the use of the term UK unless it's football worlcup where they can send multiple teams (Scotland, England, ...). What a joke!

    1. Re:What about Ukraine? by rossdee · · Score: 1

      I think United Kingdom has been around for longer as an independent country, Ukraine was just part of the Soviet (and before that Russia) empire.

    2. Re:What about Ukraine? by ledow · · Score: 4, Interesting

      However, technically, the UK's identifier for everything else is actually "gb", hence we should have the ".gb" instead of ".uk".

      But, first-come, first-served which is pretty much the mantra of anything to do with grabbing domain names despite the complete irrelevance of having a "particular" domain to modern computing.

    3. Re:What about Ukraine? by Alioth · · Score: 2

      .gb would be less accurate than .uk - Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not part of Great Britain.

      --
      Oolite: Elite-like game. For Mac, Linux and Windows
    4. Re:What about Ukraine? by pablo.cl · · Score: 3, Interesting

      There should be nor arguing about CCTLDs. All CCTLDs, (except for .uk, which is an oddity) are in ISO 3166-1. The standard may be right or wrong, accurate or vague, fair or unfair, but it's a standard.

      .gb would be standard.

    5. Re:What about Ukraine? by 91degrees · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The official ISO 3166-1 2 letter code for the UK is GB though - Short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

      "United" and "kingdom" aren't usually considered part of a country's name according to the ISO. Although it does seem a little odd that no exception was made in this case, since the United Staes of America is US.

    6. Re:What about Ukraine? by qbast · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Don't worry, you will be using .ru soon enough.

    7. Re:What about Ukraine? by fellip_nectar · · Score: 4, Informative

      The UK was initially assigned .gb and it's still reserved for us. But we got to use .uk too, as it made the transition from JANET NRS to DNS easier for our pre-existing academic network.

      --
      Worst. Signature. Ever.
    8. Re:What about Ukraine? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Well, "States" is descriptive as well, so maybe they should have gone for am. There have been several other unions of states - Brazil was The United States of Brazil for a few years before 1945, and Mexico is the United Mexican States.

      The inconsistency is what's odd. "United States" is allowed, but "United Kingdom" isn't. Either give the USA "AM" (and let Armenia work out what to call themselves later), or let the uk have "UK".

    9. Re:What about Ukraine? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      No, I don't. I'm sure there's plenty of possible confusion due to misprints.

    10. Re:What about Ukraine? by PRMan · · Score: 1

      It was done because everyone calls America "US" already. And "UK" is extremely clear where "GB" could be Gambia or something.

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    11. Re:What about Ukraine? by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      hmm. but then what would Northern Ireland get if the rest of the UK was given the GB code?

      On the other hand, .ni might be an interesting code, but would surely encourage independence claims from the republicans in NI.

    12. Re:What about Ukraine? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      The TLD .uk was already in Britain's control. They just decided to not use that and to use subdomains such as .co.uk and .org.uk instead. There's nothing new about who is allowed to use .uk.

    13. Re:What about Ukraine? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The official ISO 3166-1 2 letter code for the UK is GB though - Short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

      "United" and "kingdom" aren't usually considered part of a country's name according to the ISO. Although it does seem a little odd that no exception was made in this case, since the United Staes of America is US.

      In other words, UK = {GB, NI}. There's nothing wrong with metonymy (using a part when referring to the whole), but I think we can all agree that NI is a lot (as in "Sir *lot") is more appropriate for the country known for all the knights.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
    14. Re:What about Ukraine? by TeknoHog · · Score: 1

      The case of USA is somewhat problematic -- "united" and "states" are too generic, but so is "America". You could probably blame the Founding Fathers for the lack of imagination, but a lot of other countries have the same issue. It's just that the etymology is lost in history and/or translation.

      --
      Escher was the first MC and Giger invented the HR department.
  8. .org.uk anyone? by tomek.bury · · Score: 1

    For example: http://bggc.org.uk/ vs. http://bggc.co.uk/ - is the new http://bggc.uk/ going to glof club or gliding club and why?

  9. This is all wrong by Grishnakh · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What we should be doing is eliminating top-level names like .com, .org, .net, and especially .mil, because these are all American-biased. Instead, every country should get its own two-letter domain (.uk, .us, etc.), and inside each of those there should be .co, .org, .mil, .gov, etc. So Twinings Tea from London would have the site "twinings.co.uk", and that's it. Apple Computer would be "apple.co.us". Multinational corporations would get sites in the country where the corporate HQ is located. No multiple domains for the same company; companies only need a commercial address, not a .net or a .org since they aren't non-commercial entities. The Apache Foundation would get "apache.org.us", the US Navy would get "navy.mil.us", the Royal (British) Navy would get "navy.mil.uk", etc.

    What they've done now is just a total mess.

    1. Re:This is all wrong by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      There is a .us domain. .com has just about become multinational now anyway.

      Though you are absolutely correct that it's a mess.

    2. Re:This is all wrong by Grishnakh · · Score: 2

      Yes, there is a .us, but no one uses it. Even US governmental entities don't use .us or .gov most of the time; lots of town governments and other entities have .com or .org domains for some dumb reason. In Arizona for instance, the DMV (they call it MVD) website is "servicearizona.com". WTF? It should be something like mvd.az.gov.us. But I guess they think that's too hard for idiots to remember. In this age of Google (and other search engines), websites don't need to be that easy to remember; if you don't remember your state's motor vehicle department website, it's easy to google it.

      As for multinational stuff, I don't think that should be allowed. There's already too much debate over which country's laws should apply to a given website; for instance, should ebay.com be allowed to list historic Nazi paraphernalia? In the US, yes; in Germany, no. Whose laws apply? Well if Ebay had their US site at ebay.co.us, and maybe a sister site at ebay.co.de, the answer would be easy: their US site would follow US laws, and their German site would follow German laws. It's probably like that already anyway, but having each site explicitly show which nation it's registered in by having it as part of the name would simplify matters immensely. US authorities would have control over everything in the .us domain, and Germany would have control over everything in the .de domain, and neither would have any control over sites on the other domains. Also, domain squatting would be pretty hard because it wouldn't be trans-national: if someone sues in German court over some domain that's registered to someone else, the German court would be able to exercise authority over it if it's a .de domain. If it's a .us domain, then that company would have to file suit in a US court.

    3. Re:This is all wrong by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      Yes, there is a .us, but no one uses it. Even US governmental entities don't use .us or .gov most of the time; lots of town governments and other entities have .com or .org domains for some dumb reason. In Arizona for instance, the DMV (they call it MVD) website is "servicearizona.com". WTF? It should be something like mvd.az.gov.us. But I guess they think that's too hard for idiots to remember. In this age of Google (and other search engines), websites don't need to be that easy to remember; if you don't remember your state's motor vehicle department website, it's easy to google it.

      It IS too hard for idiots to remember. Basically, if you don't have a .com, your only means of being found is Google. (And we all know how Google can be fickle).

      People automatically assume .com on everything, so much so that even Netscape will try a lookup of "www." what-you-typed ".com" just in case. (Yes, Netscape).

      Service Arizona sounds like a governmental portal site - which through a bunch of advertising everyone probably will just type servicearizona.com out of habit as a one-stop shop to do all your state government tasks.

      They'd definitely not remember service.az.us or something like that. Hell, they'll probably complain as to why their web address is so hard to remember.

      Oh, and don't forget Google plays a part of this, since SEO has made it so domains and such get a better match. "Service Arizona" will have a better match as servicearizona.com or service-Arizona.com than service.az.us. It's why every site now puts the page title in the URL even though it's completely unnecessary since the ID is embedded in the link. It matches better on Google.

    4. Re:This is all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Youre absolutely right - freedom of choice is so messy and makes it hard to figure things out. Someone should do something about that.

    5. Re:This is all wrong by sudon't · · Score: 1

      What we should be doing is eliminating top-level names like .com, .org, .net, and especially .mil, because these are all American-biased. Instead, every country should get its own two-letter domain (.uk, .us, etc.), and inside each of those there should be .co, .org, .mil, .gov, etc. .

      Hey, that actually makes sense!

      --
      -- sudon't

      Air-ride Equipped

    6. Re:This is all wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      > Netscape will try a lookup of "www." what-you-typed ".com" just in case.

      And, it is still causing problems today. Twenty-five years ago when I first got on the Internet, we all understood hierarchies and would often use hostnames rather than FQDN, for example, just the name prism. Also, we used the next level of the hierarchy if we wanted to access a server in another department, for example prism.cs if we were under the .eng hierarchy. Now Netscape, aka Iceweasel, will send the hostname you typed into to Google! Not only did they break DNS. They also feed your private information to marketers without your permission. Google, of course, does the same with Chrome.

    7. Re:This is all wrong by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      Annoyingly, it will also do this for unqualified local names also if the website is down. So if there's a problem with a local app, you get redirected and you can't even F5 until it comes up. Not to mention, as you say, the potential for broadcasting private information to the local web.

      Broken by design.

    8. Re:This is all wrong by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      local web->public web.

    9. Re:This is all wrong by Kjella · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So Twinings Tea from London would have the site "twinings.co.uk", and that's it.

      And who'd go around remembering that Twinings is British, Sony is Japanese, Audi is German and so on? If it's sold here, I expect a localized version of their website in my country's domain (even if it's just a redirect to $brand.com/countrycode, as so many do), the country of origin is only marginally interesting. It makes guessing the correct domain harder without the use of Google, not easier.

      No multiple domains for the same company

      Let's forbid anyone doing anything about domain squatting. And won't this be massive fun during mergers, acquisitions and spinoffs.

      companies only need a commercial address, not a .net or a .org since they aren't non-commercial entities.

      The world and their dog already has a dotcom no matter what, you're trying to clean a pool that has more piss than water in it.

      Stop the madness, just accept globalization as a fact and move the whole .com to become root domains at reasonable prices and that's that. Google is just "google", Twinings Tea is just "twinings" and let Apple the computer company and Apple the music company and Apple the produce company fight over who's "apple", absolutely nobody wants their domain name to be some kind of unique categorization down a tree, it's "google" not "google.searchengine". Reserve the two-letter domains as special cases for nations and let the free market settle the rest. Practically there's no problem, are you Tesla building cars? Get teslamotors.com and the whole thing is solved with 99% less drama.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    10. Re:This is all wrong by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      SSL certs are to blame for some of this. I you are trying to get azdept.com and you have registerd azdept.com, you can get that no problem. If you are trying to get dept.az.gov.us you need to get your ssl approved up that whole chain. The owner of .az.gov.us, the owner of .gov.us.

      It's a painful process.

      --
      Cheap storage VM.
    11. Re:This is all wrong by PRMan · · Score: 1

      Well. All you guys DID start squatting on OUR Arpanet...

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    12. Re:This is all wrong by PRMan · · Score: 1

      We have a ton of idiots in California, but ours is: www.dmv.ca.gov

      --
      Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
    13. Re:This is all wrong by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1

      But if the .com domins went away, the idiots would have to get used to the new naming system and you can guarantee there'd be a load of information on mainstream news sites telling people what has happened, why and what to do about it.

      Generally, they use Google for the .coms anyway.

      It would have an advantage of spreading the .co.xx domain names around anyway, rather than having the pretty poor arbitration and cybersquatting that goes on at the moment. Slashdot.co.us - no worries. Certainly better than Slashdot.com/uk or uk.Slashdot.com that some sites tend to use for country-specific sites.

    14. Re:This is all wrong by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That has nothing to do with it. Both .uk and .co.uk are at the registrar level. No problem getting SSL for either one. dept.az.gov.us would be a subdomain of a registered domain. Not the same thing at all.

      Honestly, even subdomain validation works fine if you have administrative emails on that subdomain. Maybe EV-SSL is different in that regard. I have worked with a reseller account for SSL and don't see any isue.

    15. Re:This is all wrong by psyclone · · Score: 1

      No, not for SSL. It's only a single certificate for: www.arent.new.gtlds.fun.wtf

      However, you are correct for DNSSEC, the roots must sign .wtf, which must sign fun.wtf, which can then sign the A record for www.arent.new.gtlds inside the fun.wtf zone.

    16. Re:This is all wrong by Grishnakh · · Score: 1

      And who'd go around remembering that Twinings is British, Sony is Japanese, Audi is German and so on?

      They don't have to; that's what Google/Bing/DDG is for.

      If it's sold here, I expect a localized version of their website in my country's domain (even if it's just a redirect to $brand.com/countrycode, as so many do)

      That shouldn't be done either. If they sell in a country, it'd be in their interest to have a domain in that country's domain: Sony would have sony.co.jp for Japan, and sony.co.us for the US, and sony.co.uk for the UK, etc. Google/Bing/DDG would direct you to the one for your country as the first choice, since it's most likely that's what you're looking for.

      I'm not saying companies have to be restricted to one country's TLD, if that's what you're thinking. They could have different sites in different countries. However, it'd be nice to not have to select which country I'm in when I go to fedex.com; instead, I'd go to fedex.co.us, and get the American site. (Yes, I can go to fedex.com/us, but that's not a standard or convention, and differs from site to site.) Most likely, browsers would tack on your country code automatically, so I could just type in fedex.co, and it'd automatically tack on the .us and send me there.

      Let's forbid anyone doing anything about domain squatting. And won't this be massive fun during mergers, acquisitions and spinoffs.

      I don't see how this would make that any more difficult.

      Stop the madness, just accept globalization as a fact

      Globalization is not a fact. Quick question: should selling Nazi paraphernalia be legal or not? The US says yes, Germany says no. Whose law is Ebay supposed to follow? If Ebay has ebay.co.us and ebay.co.de, they can follow different laws in each site. (Those domains can direct to a server farm in the US even, but the .co.de-facing version would have to follow .de laws.) Instead, today, we have things like France trying to force its laws on American companies on their "global" .com sites.

      If you want a globalized internet without country codes, then you need to get rid of all countries first, and set up a single planetary government. Until that day comes (which won't be anytime soon), we should keep the internet's TLDs segregated by country, so each country has sovereignty over its TLD. Obviously, this doesn't mean someone in the US can't go visit the .co.de site of some company if they want, but it'll be completely obvious that they're now "virtually" in another country, and the site is going to follow the laws of that country, rather than their home country.

  10. Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? by greenius · · Score: 2

    With all the spamming and phishing going on, I don't understand why more businesses don't use the *.ltd.uk and *.plc.uk domains which can ONLY be registered by the legal owners of the Limited company or Corporation, preventing people from domain squatting and adding a level of trust similar to https.

    --
    I copied this sig from someone else (but where did they get it from?)
    1. Re:Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? by Richy_T · · Score: 1

      .com is .king.

    2. Re:Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Because websurfers, being a flighty and difficult to please lot, think that .ltd.uk is black magic and refuse to go anywhere near it. Srsly.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  11. Re:What is the long term future of the lesser doma by Zaiff+Urgulbunger · · Score: 1

    Interestingly, I had thought the rules were simply that .co.uk had rights over .uk and that was it. However, I too have a .me.uk domain but the .co.uk version has not been registered by anyone. So a whois on my-domain .uk says the .me.uk has registration rights.

  12. Third level domain precedence by mrt_2394871 · · Score: 1

    The rules are that, for the next five years, any .co.uk owner can register the corresponding .uk domain. If there isn't a .co.uk, the .org.uk owner can register, and if there isn't a .org.uk owner, the .me.uk owner can register it.

    All other .uk subdomains don't get a bite at the cherry. Nor is there any protected time where a .org.uk or a .me.uk owner can register the .uk domain if the .co.uk owner doesn't want it.

  13. The useless appendix by WombleGoneBad · · Score: 1

    Man : "God, why did you give me this useless appendix? it serves no purpose, and it gave me appendicitus"?
    God : "Ah i see you have trouble with that appendix, what you need is MORE OF THEM!!"
    Man : "Eh? uehah wait a moment... "
    God : "Sure, that one i put in first wasn't really in the best spot, the next five i put in will be much better... "

    Seriously, i don't see why we cant just drop ALL top level domains entirely. 'google' not 'google.com' 'slashdot' not 'slashdot.org' etc. if businesses really want to split their traffic up by country, or otherwise distinguish themselves they can do it with subdomains any way they see fit (e.g. uk.google ). The idea of humans distinguishing between 'hotpants.org' and 'hotpants.com' is fundamentally flawed.

  14. Re:So Nominet is now the Ãoeber-squatter by alex67500 · · Score: 1

    But only in UTF-8 ;-)

  15. That will mess up the public suffix list by dskoll · · Score: 1

    The public suffix list will need revision, I suppose.

  16. Re:Another chance... by dogsbreath · · Score: 4, Funny

    popeye.uk.uk.uk.uk.uk.uk

  17. Friends United UK anyone ? by craznar · · Score: 1

    Can we visit their website?

    --
    EMail: 0110001101100010010000000110001101110010 0110000101111010011011100110000101110010 0010111001100011011011110110
  18. Oh f... by Chris+Pimlott · · Score: 1

    Quick, someone get me in contact with Orchard House Foods...

  19. Jayhawks by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    This reminds me of the inanity of a certain supposed educational institution that insists on calling itself 'KU'.

    "Oh, so you're Kansas University."

    "No! We are the University of Kansas!"

    "So... you're UK."

    "NO!!! That's Kentucky! We're KU!!"

    Lather, Rinse, Stupid.

    1. Re:Jayhawks by u38cg · · Score: 1

      Reverse Polish naming. Calm down.

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
    2. Re:Jayhawks by MiniMike · · Score: 1

      As a graduate of the U of I (no, not that one, the other- no not that one either. The good one. No, not that good one. Nevermind...) I can sympathize with the confusion aspect of this (although at least we keep our letters in the right order).

  20. Re:Another chance... by Wootery · · Score: 2

    I'm surprised there aren't more people who realise than ICANN is, to use the technical term, fucking broken.

    This flood of new TLDs it not good for the web. It does mean companies and organisation are basically required to register a whole bunch of domains, though, lest unsavoury types get their hands on one of the domains. And that means a whole lot more money for ICANN.

    An alternate DNS root would be a 'solution', but breaking the web into two webs would be a pretty awful way to progress things.

    Gah.

  21. Security issues by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

    Since browsers now all support IRIs, this is likely going to be a big problem when someone registers something like gоv.uk or pоlice.uk (note that 2nd letter in each case is not 'o' but CYRILLIC SMALL LETTER O: U+043E) and starts sending out "official" directives.

    1. Re:Security issues by Hypotensive · · Score: 1

      My point would have been made a lot more succinctly if Slashdot's Unicode handling weren't completely hosed.