Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ICANN Asks FTC To Rule On .sucks gTLD Rollout

Posted by Soulskill on from the what-could-possibly-go-wrong dept.

DW100 writes: "ICANN, the body in charge of overseeing the management and rollout of new top level domains, has asked the FTC to investigate whether the registry running .sucks is acting illegally . ICANN's in-house legal team raised concerns that the registry was selling the domains to brand owners in a 'predatory' manner. "The issues relate to concerns brands wishing to buy the .sucks domain, which went on sale on 30 March for a three-month ‘clearing house' period, will have to pay $2,500 to register it for their brand. This is far in excess of the price that will be offered to the general public and the price of other top-level domains."

108 comments

  1. I guess .sucks sucks by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 4, Funny

    But who will register .sucks.sucks?

    --
    They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    1. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I guess *.reallysucks will suffer the same fate?

    2. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Megahard · · Score: 1

      It's .sucks all the way down.

      --
      I eat only the real part of complex carbohydrates.
    3. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Stormy+Dragon · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have vacuum.sucks

    4. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Slashdot+Parent · · Score: 1

      I'd rather have vacuum.sucks

      If your vacuum sucks... is that a good thing or a bad thing?

      Now look you went and made my brain hurt!

      --
      They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
    5. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by dave562 · · Score: 1

      As will .blows and every other domain that aligns with a negative connotation in the English language.

      I wonder if the Farsi equivalent of .sucks will have the same problem.

    6. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is .blows doing about it ?

    7. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Megane · · Score: 1

      I'm waiting for the .shit domain. Then I can register "is.shit" and sell sub-domains!

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    8. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      But who will register .sucks.sucks?

      Anybody. Just get a .sucks domain and create a .sucks.sucks subdomain. Hell, you don't even have to know how to build a website to use cPanel or similar.

    9. Re:I guess .sucks sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was thinking ICANN.sucks. The problem with .sucks.sucks is that it's less obvious who to extort for money to take it down.

      Oh. Right. I mean, who I'm legitimately criticizing.

  2. Seems fair by Vihai · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The new gTLDs are a monstruosity under any technical viewpoint. So it seems fair someone abuses them.

    1. Re:Seems fair by Ark42 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I just keep adding these low-value (as in, user content) TLDs to blacklists, particularly for email. I'm sure I'm not the only sysadmin doing that, so the overall utility of all these stupid TLDs is basically as a spam-filter and nothing more. No serious business is going to operate on anything other than a .com/.net/.org even if they have to get a longer domain.

      --
      Morphing Software
    2. Re:Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft would buy microsoft.sucks to prevent a critic of theirs from registering that domain and setting up an anti-microsoft site, not to send you spam.

      This pricing scheme, besides raising money for ICANN, gives the microsofts of the world an advantage to grab these domains.

    3. Re:Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It doesn't matter who buys it. Users here would be blocked from *.sucks both on the web and via email. It might as well not be bought at all, because I don't consider it a legit domain name.

    4. Re:Seems fair by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      Well I would add to that list a little bit, the national tlds are perfectly reasonable for serious business, and perfectly well intentioned individuals to use as well, I don't have a problem with .us, .uk, .ca, ...

      The anything goes as a TLD situation though is what sucks. We have enough problems with 'identity' when we care about it online as it is without adding ambiguities like, does example mean example.example.com because I have example.com. in my search suffix list or is it a tld, well okay if it was a tld it should have been written example. but did the moron who wrote the app I am using that uses that as a string component to create some more complex URI to send somewhere else know that?

      I hate this mess.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    5. Re:Seems fair by dissy · · Score: 1

      I just keep adding these low-value (as in, user content) TLDs to blacklists, particularly for email. I'm sure I'm not the only sysadmin doing that

      You are not the only one taking such a stance, however a couple years ago it became clear that a whitelist method will be far easier, quicker, and softer/fuzzier to your sanity.

      There are currently 1300 active english gTLDs added and active in the past 16 months alone.
      There are over 7000 unicode gTLDs for other languages and alphabets.
      There is no end in sight for those numbers to stop rising.

      http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/delegated-strings
      http://money.cnn.com/infographic/technology/new-gtld-list/

      Here at work I whitelist the following: .?? (aka two letter ccTLDs - though not really a safe assumption any longer) .com .net .org .edu .gov .mil .int .arpa - and for now .info

      Be aware that along with .info were a few other restricted gTLDs in the initial batch that may be safe: .info .biz .name
      (and I think .pro was restricted too, but I've never seen it used nor been asked to whitelist it here)

      Ones I do not allow here, but others should be aware were in the same second-gen gTLD batch are: .pro .bank .aero .museum .mobi .post

      Anything else came in the third-generation batch and should be blocked/ignored if you don't do international business (and in most cases, even if you do)

      YMMV

    6. Re:Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Eh, sometimes those names are taken. I have seen a few companies using the ".co" domain out of necessity (it's that or get a really long or irrelevant domain name).

    7. Re:Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ccTLDs are not gTLDs which which are the topic of this thread.

    8. Re:Seems fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your doing your users a disservice and depriving your company of revenue despite a number of new names being quite stupid (including .suck, .google, etc). While I think most businesses will have a .com there are plenty of projects you could be preventing your company from interacting with. For instance two people that I regularly interact with work on Pidgin and Trisquel which have domains: pidgin.im, trisquel.info. I also have communications from people with domains including .name and others.

      The real question is probably more along the lines of do we want a central entity to have control over the naming system. I don't want to see the US government or the United Nations have control over who can register a domain name. Period.

    9. Re:Seems fair by SgtAaron · · Score: 1

      I just keep adding these low-value (as in, user content) TLDs to blacklists, particularly for email. I'm sure I'm not the only sysadmin doing that, so the overall utility of all these stupid TLDs is basically as a spam-filter and nothing more. No serious business is going to operate on anything other than a .com/.net/.org even if they have to get a longer domain.

      You are correct: you're not the only one. I noticed a massive increase in spam the last couple of months from snowshoe spammers using .science, .rocks, .cricket (cricket!), etc, etc, etc. And not a single legitimate message that I can tell. They're the new .infos

  3. money, money, money by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Isn't that the point of the new tlds?

    1. Re:money, money, money by Marginal+Coward · · Score: 1

      Isn't that the point of the new tlds?

      Exactly. I acquired my first domain over 15 years ago when Network Solutions ran the whole thing, and the only TLDs that were commercially available were .com, .net, and .org. At that time, they cost $35 apiece per year. That $35 always seemed a bit excessive for something that was basically an entry in a computer database, but for just $105 per year, you could completely "own" a domain.

      Then things changed: the Network Solutions monopoly ended and we had competition in the domain registry business. Prices went down to the point that you now can register a domain for $12 or less per year. However, the number of TLDs exploded.

      I just did a search on my primary domain name (which I still own with .com, .net., .org., and a few other TLDs), and the following alternatives were suggested at various price points: .club, .lawyer, .co, .guru, .us, .rocks, .today, .xyz, .city, .company, .solutions, .io, .expert, .life, .website, and others. Several of those go for $40 more apiece, so if I actually purchased all of them, it would cost many times the $105 I paid in the "bad old days" of the Network Solutions monopoly. Interestingly, the prices of the TLDs are all over the map, even though I assume that each costs the same to provide. (I used to buy ".info" at the teaser price of $0.99, but I stopped playing that game when they came up for renewal at full price.)

      Of course, I don't buy every possible TLD for my small operation, but I assume that the big players of the net are forced to buy every single one that gets minted out. I assume the domain registrars of the world keep making money on these things since they keep minting them out.

      Overall, I own a few domains, with a few primary TLDs for each. I host them all using shared web hosting. Ironically, I actually pay more each year for domain names than for the hosting itself. That seems really screwy. Makes me long for the bad old days. And that really .sucks.

  4. Cash grab, then stupid? by gstoddart · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So, basically the ICANN approved this, sold it ... and only then did they stop and think "is this a good idea"?

    Way to do your due diligence.

    No, wait, this is exactly how you don't do something like this.

    This pretty much could be seen as a potential for a shakedown racket from miles away ... don't want McDonalds.sucks to be a valid website? Well, you keep adding zeroes to the check until I tell you to stop.

    --
    Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    1. Re:Cash grab, then stupid? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fine. Did you want those zeroes to be leading zeros, before any other numbers, or did you want them after the decimal point? I can do either way.

  5. Where's the money going? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    $2500 per trademark is a lot to pay for trademark owners compared to the $15 or so .com, .net, and .org domains, and the intent of this is so that competitors and detractors can post attack ads against the trademark holder. This shouldn't have been allowed... who's profiting off of this?

    1. Re:Where's the money going? by TWX · · Score: 2

      Personally I don't think that domain names should be as inexpensive as they became, as it promoted cybersquatting equal to what this registrar is attempting to charge. $2500 is too high, but the original Internic prices were, in my opinion, not unrealistic because it generally priced people out of holding more than a few domains. A business that needed a domain for their business probably only needs a few, and persons that wanted their own vanity site didn't really need more than one either.

      When domains started costing less than a fast-food meal, suddenly all good domains were bought-up by people that will sell them to you for, oh, $2500. Even if they have to hold on to them for a decade before reselling, they're still making several orders of magnitude in profit for not actually providing any kind of service.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    2. Re:Where's the money going? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      who's profiting off of this?

      ICANN when they sold it, but mostly the guy who bought it.

      Heard a radio interview with him the other week. He defended it as "free speech" and a useful way for customers to interact with brandholders.

      He straight up denied it wasn't a shakedown racket, but, then, he would.

      I'm sure any company wishing to buy it from the registered owner would need to up that $2500 by at least a zero or two.

      Hell, why not have ICANN create an ".isanasshole" domain?

      This is pretty much what lots of us expected ... most of these tld's just become a cash grab as every company now has to defensively buy a crap ton more domains.

      It's always been about monetizing more words, and ICANN was just looking to collect.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Where's the money going? by blang · · Score: 5, Funny

      .isapedofile sounds like a good "business" idea as well.

      --
      -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
    4. Re:Where's the money going? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      A business that needed a domain for their business probably only needs a few, and persons that wanted their own vanity site didn't really need more than one either.

      OTOH I think allowing people to have freedom to move hosting provider for their email and for their personal/hobby site without changing address on each move or more than doubling the cost was a very good thing.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    5. Re:Where's the money going? by TWX · · Score: 1

      Did anything that I said about owning one domain name because owning more domain names is cost-prohibitive prevent someone from being able to move their domain name from one hosting company to another, or even from one registrar to another?

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    6. Re:Where's the money going? by petermgreen · · Score: 1

      The point is with expensive domains many people will chose not to buy a domain, they will then end up using their hosting providers domain and therefore locked in. I do not see being locked in as a good thing.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
    7. Re:Where's the money going? by SeaFox · · Score: 1

      I bet .isapedophile would do even better.

    8. Re:Where's the money going? by CrashNBrn · · Score: 1

      It's better misspelt.

    9. Re:Where's the money going? by Livius · · Score: 1

      I bet .isapedophile would do even better.

      That could lead to legal problems. But the first one is just about computer files having to do with feet.

    10. Re:Where's the money going? by TWX · · Score: 1

      I think that you overestimate the number of people that this affects. After all, even a lot of technical people use Google or Yahoo or MSN/Hotmail, or any of a large number of non-ISP e-mail servers that we don't in-fact control, as a choice over using our ISP's e-mail servers.

      I've hosted my own services before. It's a pain in the ass. I do not think that most nontechnical people could do it, and would be at the mercy of another company they'd be paying money to, separate from their ISP.

      --
      Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
    11. Re:Where's the money going? by psyclone · · Score: 1

      You can get a $15 .sucks domains -- BUT it must be hosted on the registry's website, which provides a "moderated forum" for expressing speech about something you think sucks.

      The $2500 for trademark holders is extreme relative to other new gTLDs. Many charge a few hundred dollars for "trademark enabled sunrise registrations" (where you must have a registered trademark with the ICANN approved Trademark Clearinghouse (TMCH) which costs a few hundred dollars a year to maintain).

    12. Re:Where's the money going? by Jeremi · · Score: 1

      I'm sure any company wishing to buy it from the registered owner would need to up that $2500 by at least a zero or two.

      The next question to ask is, why should it bother a company so much that a companyname.sucks domain name exists that is not under their control? (i.e. why would they feel the need to spend $2500 or more to obtain it?)

      It's pretty apparent that anyone who spontaneously types that domain name into their web browser probably already feels that (companyname) sucks, otherwise they wouldn't have typed in that domain name.

      The other way people would find that domain name is by entering "companyname sucks" into a search engine -- in which case they will see all the "companyname sucks" pages, regardless of where they are hosted.

      It's doubtful anyone is going to mistake such a domain name for a legitimate company-owned site.

      And finally, paying the $2500 is definitely not going to prevent people from saying that "companyname sucks" -- they'll just say it on some other web page, and that web page's URL will be the one that comes up when you google that phrase rather than companyname.sucks. Six of one, half a dozen of the other, AFAICT.

      I'd say that if companyname.sucks is getting a lot of traffic, that (company) might want to figure out why people think they suck and take corrective action, rather than simply trying to quash peoples' complaints.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    13. Re:Where's the money going? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, that's a fair price. When .tv and .mobi were in that clearing house period, major corporations paid 2k~5k for their brand/name. The domains with 2 or more letters were from 8k~20k+ (as in, that's the highest i personally saw). This is standard domain tld practice these days. Nothing I'm reading here is out of ordinary of any tld rollout. The only difference is that it's .sucks instead of .me or something else.

  6. darrinward.sucks by Darrin+Ward+PR · · Score: 0

    i install viruses on so many computers... but no one gives me the .sucks treatment i deserve. i suck more than anyone. please show me the respect i deserve.

    --
    Use my SEOChat.com and ChatButton.com services so i can install viruses on your users computers!
    1. Re:darrinward.sucks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i install viruses on so many computers... but no one gives me the .sucks treatment i deserve. i suck more than anyone. please show me the respect i deserve.

      I originally read the subject as a typo of "darwinaward.sucks" and thought "yep that sums it up"

    2. Re:darrinward.sucks by Darrin+Ward+PR · · Score: 1

      yeah... darwin should have taken care of me a while ago.

      --
      Use my SEOChat.com and ChatButton.com services so i can install viruses on your users computers!
  7. You stupid bastards... by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

    So, when ICANN floated the gTLD idea, everyone told them that it was pointless bullshit that would only end in trademark wrangling, shakedowns, and vast swaths of slum domains used for little more than scamming.

    They decided to go ahead anyway.

    Now they are shocked, hurt, and betrayed that someone would be using one of the new TLDs for less than upstanding purposes. What utter fools.

    1. Re:You stupid bastards... by codepigeon · · Score: 1

      I couldn't agree more. Who's brilliant idea was this? I would like to think that 'we' have been trying to elevate the decorum of internet; away from trolling, abuse, and bullying. Having a ".sucks" domain has not use for anything but hatefull speech (or vacuum cleaners) and seems like a backwards direction.

    2. Re:You stupid bastards... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      They decided to go ahead anyway.

      Of course they did - 18 cents on every single domain registered goes to ... ICANN! Why get 18 cents from every trademark holder when you can get 18 dollars?

      Now they are shocked, hurt, and betrayed that someone would be using one of the new TLDs for less than upstanding purposes. What utter fools.

      I doubt they care. They want the FTC to bless it as free speech so they can wash their hands of any culpability.

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    3. Re:You stupid bastards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It could be useful for pornsites too.

    4. Re:You stupid bastards... by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      I doubt they care. They want the FTC to bless it as free speech so they can wash their hands of any culpability.

      Well, the problem with this is ... doe the FTC really have jurisdiction here?

      This was intended to be global names, affecting multiple countries. So WTF does the FTC get to decide on global things for?

      So, say in some fictional language .sucks is the same as .awesome ... is the FTC responsible saying the people in this fictional country can't have their domain name?

      This was the predictable pile of crap which was expected when they did this. Now they seem to have decided they will just approve anything, and then ask a US body to retroactively approve them.

      Will the FTC also decide if, say, .peru should be OK? Or should the world tell the FTC they don't give a crap what they think about valid domain names.

      And then we're back to "America thinks it owns the internet".

      But this stuff with ICANN, this is self inflicted stupidity which many of us predicted would happen. Going to the FTC to rule on this just shows what a terrible job they did of thinking this through.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    5. Re:You stupid bastards... by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      So WTF does the FTC get to decide on global things for?

      Are you confusing a widely-acceptable excuse with a logical predicate?

      ICANN just needs to say, "look, we ran this by the FCC and they said it was OK". That will satisfy most people that ICANN is in the clear and maybe that rightsholders shouldn't bother tying up the courts for a decade.

      Oh, and then ICANN says, "here's where to mail the check for the ICANN fees." Do you think they truly care if the FCC has jurisdiction or if their money keeps coming in?

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    6. Re:You stupid bastards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad to see you're thinking a-head.

    7. Re:You stupid bastards... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you confusing the FTC with the FCC?

  8. Is 'beta.sucks' available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Damn, I don't have $2500 lying around.

    1. Re:Is 'beta.sucks' available? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You should start a GoFundMe or Kickstarter campaign! And set one up for SystemD.sucks while you're at it.

  9. Will the ruling apply to ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ".bites" ?

    --- asking for a friend...

    1. Re:Will the ruling apply to ... by Jumunquo · · Score: 1

      Oww, STOP THAT.
      -- your friend

  10. Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

    Here's an idea... let's get rid of the TLDs that exist today, and instead award a domain every time a trademark is awarded at USPTO. Those with untrademarkable names like "Acme" can add a word saying where they are or what they do. It worked as AOL Keywords and Prodigy JumpWords back in the old days of online services, so why can't we use that, and then the list of trademarks can be a list of everything that's on the Internet. These new TLDs are really just a money grab... making everybody register yet another TLD worth of domains for all their trademarks or risk a detractor "sucks" site being launched.

    1. Re:Time to retire .com? by Luthair · · Score: 1

      So each country is going to have its own unique set of TLDs? Recall that US Trademarks are only valid in the US, similarly depending on where the .sucks company operates the FTC may not any authority.

    2. Re:Time to retire .com? by gstoddart · · Score: 0

      Yeah, brilliant, let's keep making the internet entirely the domain of corporations.

      No, wait, that's a fucking stupid idea.

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
    3. Re:Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      We solve this with "country codes" in the phone system... so maybe .us can be presumed for American users, and the rest of the world still accessible by cTLD.

    4. Re:Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      You don't have to be a corporation to register a trademark. The point is, you shouldn't own a .com and have to worry about a competitor becoming the .sucks next to you.

    5. Re:Time to retire .com? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 4, Funny

      Na, we solve this by getting rid of DNS and just going to straight IP addresses.

      That will shut down this eternal September nonsense right quick.

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    6. Re:Time to retire .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not until IPv6 gets wider acceptance.

    7. Re:Time to retire .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ICANN must've been purchased by yelp.

    8. Re:Time to retire .com? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If nothing else to this point has convinced us to use .us, nothing will. We have .com and the only people using .us are public schools, it seems.

      Besides, some trademarks only cover a geographic region or a type of product (Apple Records vs. Apple Computer). Some names just aren't unique enough to be granted nationwide usage.

    9. Re:Time to retire .com? by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Sure, I mean it isn't like the majority of the world doesn't operate in the US, but hell, fuck it! Lets only allow unfettered access to the internet for people presenting their SIN, blood samples, and birth cirtificates while we're at it!

      --
      Bye!
    10. Re:Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      The Internet was a USA invention, then we invited other nations to play too. Which is why .com, .net, .org, .gov and .mil all represent American sites.

      You already have to provide identity information to run a server or exist on a shared server... your domain name must be in whois or you must have somebody stand in between for whois purposes, and you must provide billing info to a web hosting or server hosting company and/or your bandwidth provider.

      What I'm saying is that that domain names are trademarks, and keeping a separate list for trademark owners and domain owners only leads to abuses such as .sucks which put companies like Coca-Cola in a position to have to pay up for an expensive domain, or risk a detractor group that wants to keep caffeine away from people they want to hold down owning a piece of Coca-Cola's web space.

    11. Re:Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      The problem is that IP addresses change too often, just like phone service before the existence of number portability. Somebody needed to spring up to map trademarks to IP addresses, and that's the domain name system.

      The problem was, the invention of .com, .net and .org allows similarly named unrelated entities to start confusion.

    12. Re:Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      Apple Records and Apple Computer went to trademark court and ended up settling. Apple Computer got the ability to just be called Apple as a result.

    13. Re:Time to retire .com? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Yes, yes - in that case. That's because Apple Computer got into the music business. I just picked it as an easy example. But it's possible for two companies to have trademarks for the same name in different fields.

      "You can do it, we can help"
      Trademarked by Nicorette Gum

      "You can do it, we can help"
      Trademarked by Home Depot

      The same trademark but used in two different fields

    14. Re:Time to retire .com? by ColdWetDog · · Score: 1

      ** Not Serious ***
      ** Not a valid technical solution ***
      ** Do not try this at home **
      ** Professional driver on closed course **

      --
      Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
    15. Re:Time to retire .com? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Google has replaced DNS. Hadn't you noticed? Domain names mean nothing now. If it is not in the Google search box it does not exist. Nobody knows what that funny address bar at the top of the browser window is for anymore, there is only the Google search box.

      So yeah, we might as well get rid of DNS and just use IP addresses. Domain names mean nothing now.

    16. Re:Time to retire .com? by The+New+Guy+2.0 · · Score: 1

      That's a slogan rather than a company name. Additionally, Home Depot got sued by a smaller hardware store for that one. Google doesn't find the tobacco definition of that one anymore.

      What I'm really saying is that Coca-Cola should only have to register Sprite at the trademark office, not at every domain suffix in the world. This .sucks TLD is just an extortion program.

  11. Next up: by Krazy+Kanuck · · Score: 2

    .farts .smells .stinks ... its like Mad Libs for tlds

  12. They should have thought of that before fellatio by blang · · Score: 0

    When they have put that dick in their mouth, they might as well swallow.

    What fucking asshats occupying these committee seats thinks that just because you can find a word in the dictionary, should it be allowed as one of the core road signs on the internet.

    Let ICANN eat a bowl of dicks for breakfast until eternity.
    And guess what ICANNS Irish Oat meal might not be what you think it is,
    I never though I could ever write such a post and be 100% on topic....

    --
    -- Another senseless waste of fine bytes.
  13. Seems expensive for sure... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 2

    I can see Dyson, Electrolux, Hoover, Bissell and many others having legitimate claims to those domains, and that price seems more than a tad steep. I'll be interested to see how this pans out.

    After all, if I were to create the Adespoton Super Straw as a startup, there's no way I'd want to have to buy this sort of a domain for such a price, especially if they're planning to drop it down to $8 in a few months.

    1. Re:Seems expensive for sure... by LifesABeach · · Score: 1

      I imagine several porn personalities remorsing over the outcome of losing *.sucks

    2. Re:Seems expensive for sure... by fermion · · Score: 1
      I don't see why legitimate companies would want to own this TLD. Let is go to people who want to attack the company online. If you have a good product your customers are not going to be overwhelmed by the negative reviews on a site that that has the sole purpose to be negative. New customers are going to see negative reviews, on a site that is intended to be negative, but again if the product is good they will also see other reviews elsewhere

      The only thing a .sucks is going to do is provide a platform for negative opinions. It will not necessarily be a popular or dominant platform. The exception might be organizations that are not really flexible enough to handle criticism. So Scientology and many other religions, most politicians, and Coca Cola will probably have to buy the domains, but $2500 is not a huge expense for them.

      This is speculation and some will profit but I suspect it will not be a long term thing. It is like when the domains names cost huge amounts of money and people spent huge amounts of money buying them up hoping to resell. Some people made a lot of money, but I suspect most did not.

      --
      "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    3. Re:Seems expensive for sure... by Em+Adespoton · · Score: 1

      This seems like the *perfect* place to say...

      "Whoosh" :D

  14. Pot vs kettle by Sqr(twg) · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How is this different from what ICANN did when tried to get every major brand to pay them $185.000 for a gTLD?

    1. Re:Pot vs kettle by lister+king+of+smeg · · Score: 1

      How is this different from what ICANN did when tried to get every major brand to pay them $185.000 for a gTLD?

      because that was them doing it so it was okay...right?

      --
      ---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
    2. Re:Pot vs kettle by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      $185 isn't that much. What's the problem?

    3. Re:Pot vs kettle by andydouble07 · · Score: 1

      Those high-precision pennies are very expensive lately.

  15. Classic brinksmanship by jeffmeden · · Score: 2

    If no one paid for a .sucks domain, Google (where all information discovery starts out at on the internet anyway) would simply rank .sucks domains nice and far down and mcdonalds.sucks would be no more relevant than mcdonalds-sucks.tumblr.com so you can thank whoever it is that bought the first .sucks for this shitstorm. I just can't believe that it's 2015 and we are still debating how best to handle basic squatting. If someone owns a particular trademark, why not just wait for someone to shell out for the .sucks version, and then lawyer the shit out of them? Maybe because it would cost more than $2500 anyway.

    1. Re:Classic brinksmanship by petermgreen · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If someone owns a particular trademark, why not just wait for someone to shell out for the .sucks version, and then lawyer the shit out of them?

      If paypal could have shut down paypalsucks.com by "lawyering the shit out of them" don't you think they would have done so by now. I don't see why paypal.sucks would be any different.

      --
      note: i'm known as plugwash most places but i screwd up registering that here somehow in the past and now can't register
  16. Get 'em while they're hot! by Tokolosh · · Score: 2

    Still available (https://www.nic.sucks/domainsearch):

    ftc.sucks
    icann.sucks
    slashdot.sucks
    electrolux.sucks
    beta.sucks

    Taken:

    voxpopuli.sucks

    --
    Prove anything by multiplying Huge Number times Tiny Number
    1. Re:Get 'em while they're hot! by OzPeter · · Score: 1

      Still available (https://www.nic.sucks/domainsearch):

      slashdot.sucks

      Of course it is, even slashdot doesn't want Beta now!

      --
      I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
    2. Re:Get 'em while they're hot! by Megane · · Score: 1

      Congratulations ! The domain DISCO.sucks is available for Registration.

      --
      #naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
    3. Re:Get 'em while they're hot! by Pikoro · · Score: 1

      Funny thing is, if you look at the ticker showing recent registrations, NONE of them are by the trademark holders. They're all 101 Domains and CSC Corporate Domains. So these companies are buying up the domains, in order to sell "trademark protection services" to the actual trademark holders.

      Nothing good will come of this, but the guy who owns the .sucks gtld is making money hand over fist.

      --
      "Freedom in the USA is not the ability to do what you want. It is the ability to stop others from doing what THEY want"
  17. Re:They should have thought of that before fellati by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So what you're saying is that icann.sucks.

  18. A good solution for the future by davidwr · · Score: 2

    For all future .TLD rollouts, allow trademark owners to put a "bar" on names they own and any similar spelling variants for no more than the cost of processing the paperwork - well under $5 plus a penny less for each additional name in the same request (companies typically have many trademarks, and each has many close spelling variants that typo-squatters would abuse). If a name is barred, anyone coming along later wanting to use the name would have to demonstrate that the entity holding the "bar" no longer has the trademark, or that the company wanting the name also holds a valid trademark. If two companies claim they want the name and both hold valid trademarks, then it would be handed out by lottery.

    Likewise, all existing .TLDs should be required to offer the same "low-cost bar" courtesy to any legitimate trademark-owner who asks for it.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    1. Re:A good solution for the future by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Many registry operators have them, they are called "blocks" where you put a block on your TM'd string like "slashdot". For example, the Donuts registry which has over 200 new gTLDs allows you to buy a "block" which applies to all their TLDs for a fairly reasonable fee (a few hundred dollars).

      .sucks does have blocking... but it kinda sucks (-:

    2. Re:A good solution for the future by davidwr · · Score: 1

      A few hundred dollars is not reasonable. Reasonable is at most the cost of a generic, not-in-demand domain name (i.e. under $5/year) and even that is high. The cost of the block should be high enough to cover the cost to the registrar for the paperwork involved plus a token profit (no more than, $1).

      Anything more is tanamount to extortion: "Pay us $HUNDREDS or some other company will buy the domain and do who knows what with it. It will cost you $THOUSANDS in legal fees to get a court to enjoin that company from using the name, so pay us $HUNDREDS now or pay someone else $THOUSANDS later."

      --
      Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
    3. Re:A good solution for the future by psyclone · · Score: 1

      Considering it costs around $250 to "register" your nationally Registered Trademark with the Trademark Clearinghouse (http://trademark-clearinghouse.com/) in order to even purchase ANY new gTLD in Sunrise, it's not too far fetched to purchase a "block" that covers hundreds of TLDs for a few hundred dollars. Alternately, trademark holders can purchase domains in Sunrise at a few hundred dollars each which is what the registries charge.

      I don't disagree that the whole new gTLD "market" is a cash cow for ICANN, the new registries, and registrars (middle-men).

  19. Brand owners should be prohibited.. by MpVpRb · · Score: 2

    ..from registering their name in the ,sucks domain

    It should only be available to their critics

    Otherwise..why bother?

    Who would want to go to McDonalds.sucks to see a pro-McDonalds ad?

    1. Re:Brand owners should be prohibited.. by Insightfill · · Score: 1

      Brand owners should be prohibited... from registering their name in the ,sucks domain

      It should only be available to their critics

      Otherwise..why bother?

      Who would want to go to McDonalds.sucks to see a pro-McDonalds ad?

      Maybe vacuum cleaner manufacturers can work with this... or prostitutes.

    2. Re:Brand owners should be prohibited.. by Perky_Goth · · Score: 1

      It's a free market, a for profit company like ICANN should be able to do whatever it wants to get money, and if you don't like it you should entrepeneur your own ICANN. /s

  20. Hmm by ThatsNotPudding · · Score: 1

    I wonder how much they want for .tld?

  21. Not all sites need to be derogitory... by Bigbuzzman · · Score: 1

    primus.sucks

  22. It's much worse than that by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    They're nominally a US institution but keps on insisting that they were neutral and shit, really. Down to the US govt. telling them to figure out how to govern themselves* that so far has resulted in bickering and arguing and more showing off of how incompetent and untrustworthy ICANN really is.

    But so now they ask another US govt. department for a ruling. Not a judge, no the, FTC. That means that they're simply a US govt. department after all. So much for global independence. Foot, meet mouth.

    * Which is another recipe for obvious success, naturally.

  23. Should not have ever been approved by jtara · · Score: 1

    The TLD should never have been approved in the first place. It simply invites abuse. This should have been obvious. What kind of idiots decided this?

    A company/brand simply cannot win on this. If the company caves-in and buys the domain, now they are in a position of owning a domain that says that their company/brand sucks. What do they do then? Put up a page saying "not really"?

    1. Re:Should not have ever been approved by psyclone · · Score: 1

      ICANN allowed it and now they're back pedaling since these brand and trademark holders pretty much have to purchase their brands in every new gTLD anyway, so the ICANN fee of 18-25 cents per domain really adds up.

  24. Wow. by jythie · · Score: 1

    Talk about creating a problem only you can solve, for a price.

  25. I want by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want homer.doh ...
    or icann.dopeslap

  26. new domain... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, I guess Justin Beiber and Taylor Swift have to buy another domain...

  27. yeah, they should be eliminated by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like there to be no more english language TLDs, and maybe remove some of the existing ones.

  28. Supply and Demand argument by Jaazaniah · · Score: 1

    If the brand itself didn't end up purchasing their name in .sucks first, and some upstart made a viral site that was protected enough legally to resist DMCA notices, how much would the market bear to purchase a domain from a viral nay-sayer? $2500 is cheap in that light.

  29. Any company that falls for it deserves it by hawguy · · Score: 1

    Any company that falls for the "Buy your-company.sucks before anyone else does!" deserves whatever price they pay -- they can't buy up every .sucks domain for every permutation of their company name, so why bother? Is "http://microsoft.sucks" significantly worse than "http://micro.soft.sucks" or "http://microsoft-inc.sucks" or "http://microsoft-really.sucks" or "http://microsoft-software.sucks" or any of the other thousands of permutations of the name?

  30. Quit conflating trademarks with domain names. by tlambert · · Score: 1

    Quit conflating trademarks with domain names.

    Make a ".trademark" TLD. Everyone will ignore it, of course.

    Problem solved.

  31. TLDs by psyclone · · Score: 1

    I'm not sure where you got your numbers from, there are only 919 root-delegated Top Level Domains. There are a few hundred more pending new gTLD application with ICANN so the total for the next few years won't exceed 1200. (There are plans for a second round of new gTLD applications. The first round cost each applicant $185,000 USD.)

    Definitions:
    TLD = Top Level Domain
    gTLD = Generic Top Level Domain (.com, .net, .org, .info, .biz)
    new gTLD = New Generic Top Level Domain recently allowed by ICANN (.club, .bike, .software, .guru, .ninja, .computer, .sucks, .wtf, .porn, .xn--io0a7i, .google, .canon etc etc)
    sTLD = Sponsored Top Level Domain aka "restricted TLD" (.aero, .pro, .tel, .museum, .travel, .edu, .coop etc)
    ccTLD = Country Code Top Level Domain (.uk, .me, .io, etc)
    Extension = a sub-domain you can register under (.co.uk, .de.com, 0.bg, .com.au etc)

    Sponsored TLDs are restricted. For instance, you need a "UIN" delegated by the "Travel Industry" for a .travel domain, only legit museums can get a .museum domain, and only licensed professionals can get a .pro domain, which is why you don't see many of them (and never get spam from them either).

    All legacy gTLDs are unrestricted. For awhile, .info domains were sold super cheap ( $5) so scammers bought them up.

    Most new gTLDs are unrestricted, while some are restricted like .berlin and .nyc (need to be local to the city) and .bank (need to be a real financial institution and get audited every 2 years and sign your domain with DNSSEC, etc).

    ccTLDs can do whatever they want and are not governed by ICANN.

    For now, you can "blacklist" new gTLDs without much consequence, because people and businesses are only starting to use them. Keep in mind scammers/spammers/annoying-people register CHEAP domains, so you might want to blacklist .xyz (cheap) but not .bank (expensive). But in the future, legitimate activities under new gTLDs will occur so you might want to allow them over time.

    But really, why block at the TLD level and not based on content and RFC compliance?

  32. Can't say we didn't warn them... by GoddersUK · · Score: 1

    I'm not aware of a single person who thought this gTLD roll out was a good idea. This was exactly one of the reasons why. ICANN deserve to be sued into obliteration.