Slashdot Mirror


Say Hello To Branded Internet Addresses (cnet.com)

On September 29, Google published a new blog which uses .google domain rather the standard .com. It seems the company may have inspired other companies to tout their brand names in the digital realm as well. According to a report on CNET, we have since seen requests for domain names such as .kindle, .apple, .ibm, .canon, and .samsung. And it's not just tech companies that are finding this very attractive, other domain requests include .ford, .delta, .hbo, .mcdonalds, and .nike. From the report: Approval, of course, is just a first step. It's not clear how enthusiastic most companies will be about the new names. So far, Google is the eager beaver. What's fun for Google is a daunting financial commitment to others. A $185,000 application fee and annual $30,000 operation fee will keep mom-and-pop shops away from their own domains. Still, plenty of businesses other than Google see the new domain names as a good investment. Branded domains can add distinction to an internet address, and renting out generic top-level domain (GTLD) names can potentially be a lucrative business. At a January auction, GMO Registry bid $41.5 million to win rights to sell .shop domain names. And in July, Nu Dot Co won .web with a bid of $135 million. Hundreds of new top-level domain names are approved. The single most popular in use is .xyz. Hundreds of new top-level domain names are approved. The single most popular in use is .xyz. Where does all the money go? To a nonprofit organization called ICANN -- the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. The organization oversees internet plumbing on behalf of companies, governments and universities, as well as the general public.

146 comments

  1. Summary by 110010001000 · · Score: 1, Funny

    The summary misses some important answers to questions like "how many top-level domains are approved?" and "What is the single most popular in use"? Once the summary answers these questions I will take it seriously.

    1. Re:Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The summary answers your questions, and also answers the same questions for âtop-level domain names.

    2. Re:Summary by Pieroxy · · Score: 1

      The summary answers your questions, and also answers the same questions for âtop-level domain names.

      It answers the question, yes, but how many times ?

    3. Re: Summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is .fantastic. I can't .fuckingwait

    4. Re: Summary by psyclone · · Score: 1

      There is .WTF

      http://nic.wtf/

    5. Re: Summary by cmiller173 · · Score: 1

      wtf?

    6. Re:Summary by Daetrin · · Score: 2

      The single most popular in use? It must not be .xyz, because that is apparently the dual most popular in use.

      --
      This Space Intentionally Left Blank
  2. https://google by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    What a luxury! Having a domain being only a TLD. But will that work, using the TLD without any subdomain, i.e. no '.' dot? That's likely to break a lot of applications.

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    1. Re: https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only standards non-compliant programs. Standards suggest adding a search suffix unless the domain ends in a period. "google" -> "google.your.home.net" and then "google." if all fails.

    2. Re:https://google by dkone · · Score: 1

      what is the difference if it is google.com or google.google. No on is saying there won't be a '.' dot except you. It will be a TLD. Although in Googles case I am sure it will be search.google, apps.google, maps.google, etc...

    3. Re:https://google by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      What i'm trying to say is that would be classy to have a page on a TLD (but that may not work)

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    4. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have you ever connected to a web server that is local to you, or in your domain search list? it would only break if "google" is a server in your network.

      I've often, at work, just typed http://foo and accessed web server "foo" on the network.

    5. Re:https://google by fisted · · Score: 1

      technically that's not a problem, but i have yet to see a browser that wouldn't shit itself over a real FQDN (i.e. one that ends in a period)

    6. Re: https://google by fisted · · Score: 1

      unless the domain ends in a period. "google" -> "google.your.home.net"

      So "google" -> "google.your.home.net" -> "google.your.home.net.your.home.net" -> "google.your.home.net.your.home.net.your.home.net" -> "google.your.home.net.your.home.net.your.home.net.your.home.net" [...]

      Thanks for explaining the matter! I totally get it now.

    7. Re:https://google by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Why? Is there anything about DNS that's tied to .com/.org/.net/.gov?

    8. Re:https://google by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 2

      DNS is fine. Some applications, however, require an public domain on the Internet to have '.' inside... A regex that requires a '.'!

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    9. Re:https://google by Wycliffe · · Score: 2

      DNS is fine. Some applications, however, require an public domain on the Internet to have '.' inside... A regex that requires a '.'!

      Most applications I've run across that do email validation are way too restrictive. If you have a 4 letter or longer top level domain, many will reject your email address and more exotics like a plus in your email, a percent in your email, etc... will almost certainly be rejected.

    10. Re:https://google by Archangel+Michael · · Score: 1

      Its likely to break a lot of poorly designed applications, ones that do not use DNS properly.

      --
      Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
    11. Re:https://google by omnichad · · Score: 1

      That's not a TLD. Using a TLD would mean http://google/

    12. Re:https://google by omnichad · · Score: 2

      The reason why plus signs are rejected are for the same reason you found out they are rejected. Because Google ignores everything after the + in an email address - allowing you to sign up for multiple accounts with one email address. They don't want it to be easy...because reasons.

    13. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Not allowed by ICANN rules, but technically it would work. There is nothing preventing a root nameserver for the TLD to return an A/AAAA record. Not all applications would handle it properly I would guess. If you have a search suffix set this will be queried first, eg http://samsung could be http://samsung.linksysrouter and then fail to resolve. http://samsung. is completely valid.

    14. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't want to bother with vanity tld's to be honest. Most of it is has been spam so far.

    15. Re:https://google by ADRA · · Score: 1

      Maybe not too many applications, but It'll break a million web email entry fields which require an '@' and a '.'

      --
      Bye!
    16. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those applications are going to be extremely rare; most of those bugs would have gotten fixed 20-25 years ago, when some developer would have tried to connect to use their non-public test server.

      If you see code newer than 25 years old with this, you're looking at shit that was written by someone mind-bogglingly incompetent, and also it probably hasn't been tested yet, either.

      Seriously, I wouldn't worry about it. You're not going to find one of these bugs unless you wrote it, yesterday.

    17. Re:https://google by arth1 · · Score: 2

      Most applications I've run across that do email validation are way too restrictive. If you have a 4 letter or longer top level domain, many will reject your email address and more exotics like a plus in your email, a percent in your email, etc... will almost certainly be rejected.

      Or they demand a @ and domain name. Try IP literals or bang paths, like:
      [127.1.2.3]!somehost!someotherhost!user

      Not a lot of sites still support them.

    18. Re: https://google by Nunya666 · · Score: 1

      Only standards non-compliant programs.

      In other words, anything written by Google or Microsoft. Got it.

    19. Re:https://google by the_other_chewey · · Score: 1

      You need better glasses:

      Here, https://google.com. just works.

    20. Re:https://google by arth1 · · Score: 2

      technically that's not a problem, but i have yet to see a browser that wouldn't shit itself over a real FQDN (i.e. one that ends in a period)

      I cannot find a single one that doesn't work. Palemoon, Firefox, Midori, lynx and even good old NCSA Mosaic works just fine with a terminated FQDN.

      Some of them might send the dot in the Host: header, and the remote web server might not handle that correctly. Most do, though.
      And some might show unneccessary warnings for https, unless the CA has also put the name with the dot in the certificate.
      But the browsers themselves work quite well. Which ones have you tried that don't?

    21. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I specifically don't hyperlink domains longer than 4 characters on my site. I'm not here to advertise your shitty brand.

    22. Re:https://google by psyclone · · Score: 1

      ICANN requires the registry operators for new TLDs to have a: label (dot) TLD

      They are also prohibited from wildcarding DNS so they cannot use *.google either, they must register each domain separately and publish the zone files.

    23. Re:https://google by cmiller173 · · Score: 2

      www.google.google

    24. Re:https://google by psyclone · · Score: 1

      You are still allowing quite a few top level domains (listing only 3-4 character below) .aaa .ads .aero .aig .app .arab .army .art .asia .auto .axa .baby .band .bank .bar .beer .best .bet .bid .bike .bing .bio .biz .blog .blue .bom .boo .book .box .buy .buzz .bzh .cab .cafe .cal .cam .camp .car .care .cars .casa .cash .cat .cbs .ceo .cfd .chat .city .club .com .cool .coop .corp .cpa .csc .dad .data .date .day .dclk .dds .deal .desi .dev .dhl .diet .diy .docs .dog .dot .eat .eco .edu .esq .eus .fail .fan .fans .farm .film .fish .fit .fly .foo .food .fox .free .frl .fun .fund .fyi .gal .game .gay .gbiz .gdn .gent .gift .gle .gmbh .gold .golf .goog .gop .guge .guru .hair .haus .hbo .help .here .hiv .home .host .hot .how .icu .idn .immo .inc .info .ing .ink .ist .itau .jmp .jobs .kid .kids .kim .kiwi .krd .land .lat .law .lgbt .life .limo .link .live .llc .llp .loan .lol .love .ltd .ltda .luxe .mail .map .mba .med .meet .meme .men .menu .mint .mls .mobi .moda .moe .moi .mom .moto .mov .name .navy .net .new .news

    25. Re: https://google by malditaenvidia · · Score: 1

      OR mozilla.

    26. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      foo is the hostname, not the TLD.

    27. Re:https://google by fisted · · Score: 1

      Sorry, you're right. Even my browser handles it correctly now. (For the record, I remember trying this with firefox two-weeks-ago (version 20-30ish) and with chrome (version unknown) on a friend's computer, unsuccessfully both times, but it might have been due to the Host header indeed. I hadn't thought of that..

    28. Re:https://google by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      www.google ...

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    29. Re:https://google by erice · · Score: 1

      DNS is fine. Some applications, however, require an public domain on the Internet to have '.' inside... A regex that requires a '.'!

      Most applications I've run across that do email validation are way too restrictive. If you have a 4 letter or longer top level domain, many will reject your email address and more exotics like a plus in your email, a percent in your email, etc... will almost certainly be rejected.

      One of the most embarrassing of such cases is from Google themselves. For some time (it is fixed now), there was a bug in the job application form. If you used an email with more than two parts to the domain name (foo@bar.example.com), it would be flagged as invalid. I've seen other sites make this error too.

    30. Re:https://google by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I use it to use a unique email address at each service, so I can blacklist an address if it gets in spammers hands. For example, if Netflix ever gets hacked and my address leaks, spammers will have username+netflix@domain.tld. Yes, the spammers could strip out everything between the + and @, but I haven't seen it happen yet

    31. Re:https://google by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      There are already a million and one which refuse to allow + or other non a-z0-9 characters left of the @

  3. BNP Paribas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This french bank has been doing exactly this since a few months now ...

    1. Re:BNP Paribas by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It actually makes sense for banks or other highly-phishable companies; if you control your own TLD, verifying valid domainnames becomes a lot easier.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    2. Re:BNP Paribas by MrLogic17 · · Score: 2

      Only to the extent that ".com" addresses verify validity.
      Quick, is "https:\\logins.accounts.bankcfamerica\" valid and the genuine site?

      I, for one, welcome our TLD typo-squatting overlords.

    3. Re:BNP Paribas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm in favor of a .bank domain that some consortium of banks would use to prevent phishing sites from getting sites on.

    4. Re:BNP Paribas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      s/lot/little/

      And there are better ways than $200K/victim rackets to tackle the legitimate security issue.

    5. Re:BNP Paribas by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      What difference does that make if you're relying on 3rd parties to validate for you? E-mail clients could already scan for fake PayPal links, but they don't because it's not their problem to maintain a database of brand names.

      It was a major goof to reverse the order of domain levels in the first place. Adding or removing levels won't fix that.

    6. Re: BNP Paribas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The answer is "no", that fqdn did not end in .bank

      Similar question, which is more legit, "whitehouse.com" which you say is the real verified government site, or "whitehouse.gov" which is under the restricted gov tld?

      How about: which site would a retired department of defense worker feel more comfortable putting in their personal info to check benefits status - "dod.com" as you claim is real, or "dod.mil" under the restricted mil tld?

      Same with ".edu" and ".int"

      Even the current usage of ".arpa" in a round about way could be argued that it verifies with proof that you're looking at a reverse IP zone delegation.
      However as the original intent of ".arpa" was different than the current restricted form, it's understandable at least why one may not count it even now.

      These tlds exist for a reason, and it's a pretty damn good reason so long as the gtld steward isn't stupid about it and sells domains to anyone with the cash they ask.
      Most of the examples I used above for instance have no yearly fees or any cost to register. But you have no choice other than meet the tlds requirements to even avail yourself of them.
      Edu, gov, and mil are all $free. (I don't know about .int)

      Of course .bankofamerica would be a stupid way to go about it as well, which about everyone who knows how the domain system works would tell you.

      Same with .google as a tld, although arguably at least here it may be one point less stupid, in that if Google kept registrations restricted to sites only within the company, it may at least serve a marketing purpose.
      (I'm not claiming that one point is a good one, or worth all the problems that naturally come with this system, but I do hold its better in that one minor way for a company like Google which is more an umbrella with many projects under it, vs a single bank for which only confusion can result)

    7. Re:BNP Paribas by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I'm talking about end-user validation.
      I don't know if google-accounts.com is a phishing domain or property of Google, just from looking at the URL.
      If Google owns the .google TLD, this becomes a lot easier.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    8. Re: BNP Paribas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about: which site would a retired department of defense worker feel more comfortable putting in their personal info to check benefits status - "dod.com" as you claim is real, or "dod.mil" under the restricted mil tld?

      Having worked IT security in the military, I know they'd trust dod.mil.scammer. "But it looked like a legit site!"

    9. Re:BNP Paribas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only to the extent that ".com" addresses verify validity.
      Quick, is "https:\\logins.accounts.bankcfamerica\" valid and the genuine site?

      I, for one, welcome our TLD typo-squatting overlords.

      Good luck getting that approved as a gtld.

      Oh, and the $185,000 application fee is non-refundable.... So no.

    10. Re:BNP Paribas by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Well, I'd like to agree, but I've been seeing a huge trend where all links in e-mails use tracking services, even for plain URLs. Things like, "click here to see our privacy policy", and instead of using a proper URL like "www.site.com/privacypolicy/2016/", they send you something like "tracking.3rdparty.com?link=7d0Hg1f2dhF8gNnb78r".

      As long as legitimate companies refuse to use real URLs in their marketing messages, would we really expect end-users to spot phishing scams? This is not a problem that can be solved at the end-user level if companies have stupid security policies to begin with and insist on using tracking domains or outsourcing their statistics. New TLDs won't help.

  4. Summary sucks, as usual by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It's not really a "branded internet address" - it's a branded TLD.

    I don't really have a problem with it. They'll be expensive (as they should be) and should get extra scrutiny before being approved.

    1. Re:Summary sucks, as usual by omnichad · · Score: 2

      Sure - and if you're the only person on Name St, it's both a branded address and a branded street. Same thing applies.

  5. Who? by rotorbudd · · Score: 0

    Who the hell edited this?

    --
    A bullet may have your name on it, but artillery is addressed to " Whom It May concern"
    1. Re:Who? by OfficeLackey · · Score: 1

      Exactly! This is a prime example of why computers will eventually take all our jobs...

  6. Sigh by ledow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Just people some idiot paid that much to run that name, it doesn't mean that's what it's worth (except to that one seller, that one time).

    How do you profit from, say .xyz? By selling domains at .xyz. If those domains are expensive, nobody will touch them. If they are cheap, you'll never make your money back.

    You would need to sell tens of millions of TLD addresses to recoup the money invested, even over a ten year period. That's unlikely. Hell, by that time, TLD's might be entirely dead and we've all moved on to something else.

    1. Re:Sigh by flink · · Score: 1

      Sounds like ICANN should have their operating costs covered for the next 50 years though.

    2. Re:Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hahaha. SHOULD but won't. The money will be raided for fancy Christmas parties, "necessary" travel, expensive toys around the office, increased salaries, etc.

      The side effect will be a BROKE ICANN in a few years, just like lottery winners who think a lump sum payday can be splurged forever.

    3. Re:Sigh by OtisSnerd · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The only thing we saw in the .XYZ domain, was a drastic increase in spam. It was so much that we added a specific rule to the spam filter to reject connections from any email or host that used .XYZ. The other new TLDs mostly are suffering the same fate, they are full of spammers.

    4. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Have a structured settlement and need cash now?

      Call JG Wentworth, 877 CASH NOW!

    5. Re: Sigh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey! I win the mega millions 3 years ago and I still have the trailer home I bought with it. I also bought my parents a trailer home in the same lot as well as my two children. There is also space for some cars that need fixin and such (need to throw in the surf 'such' as it's the true indicator of trailer trash). Now I have different neighbors because my family took loans out in their trailers and list them. And my dog went missing a few weeks ago. (Need to go on a tangent like trump trash). Now I need to go have a black lives matter movent if the bowels. Damn you panda express.

    6. Re:Sigh by Mike+Van+Pelt · · Score: 1

      This. I ding all TLDs that aren't on the list of known good ones, myself. I've had to whitelist ... one. (1) That's the spam-to-legit ratio I have observed.

  7. .scam by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    Please can I have ".scam". I know a few politicians who may need it (and some Nigerian princes too).

    And ".scum" for some of my "friends" in banking.

  8. ICANN, you failed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...miserably

    1. Re:ICANN, you failed... by SumDog · · Score: 1

      I cannot agree more. I am so sad this got approved. This was one of the worst ICANN decisions ever. It effectively another step towards a more closed, exclusive and closed wall Internet. The big names get their own TLDs now, well out of the reach of individuals. It's AOL keywords all over again, except worse.

    2. Re:ICANN, you failed... by geminidomino · · Score: 1

      I doubt it'll make much difference in the long run, after seeing how .top, .info, etc.. turned out - just more playgrounds for spammers while the registrars get to rake in fees for useless registrations for "brand protection". Legit companies will still have a .com, legit organizations will still have a .org (or a .com), etc.

      Maybe after some time, one or two of these new TLDs will get some legitimacy. I expect, though, this will just end up making me spend that much more time updating my check_helo_access and smtpd_sender_restrictions pcre files...

       

    3. Re:ICANN, you failed... by stoatwblr · · Score: 1

      This is all about money and Peter Dengate Thrush's (Ex-chair) world domination plans.

      It's not a coincidence that he went for the position after discovering how much money could be made whilst the chair of Internet New Zealand and it's not a coincidence that he went from chair of ICANN to being a senior staffer in a DNS company. (It's also not a coincidence that his ethics are well-documented as being non-existent)

  9. I like it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now, it's going to make it even easier to filter shit out.

    1. Re:I like it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Agreed. If Crooked Hillary wins I'll blacklist every corp and page that was stupid enough to support the most corrupt person in modern times.

  10. The single most popular in use is .xyz. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't forget to mention that the single most popular in use is .xyz. Don't mention that they gave away hundreds of thousands of .xyz domains for free to people who didn't even ask for them to get there. Fake it till you make it.

    1. Re:The single most popular in use is .xyz. by ShaunC · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Don't mention that they gave away hundreds of thousands of .xyz domains for free to people who didn't even ask for them to get there.

      Which has, incidentally, given it a reputation of being 99.9% spam, just like .biz. I visited abc.xyz the day Google announced its reorg, and that remains the only legitimate domain I've ever seen in that TLD. I have postfix rejecting anything with a .xyz "From" header, and it looks like I'm about to add .shop to the list.

      IMO the only thing these new TLDs are accomplishing is fracturing the namespace into ever more useless niches that will never be widely accepted or compatible. Oh well, it's their money, if they want to waste it.

      --
      Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
    2. Re:The single most popular in use is .xyz. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A video game I used to play (since closed) used powergrid.xyz, so I've seen two legit uses

  11. Does it really matter? by Pollux · · Score: 4, Insightful

    About half the users in my network just go to Google and type "youtube" anyways. When I say, "Go to the address bar, and...", it's a foreign language to them. And mobile devices now hide the address bar, sometimes making it incredibly frustrating and difficult trying to locate it. With half of all users just Google the link, and the other half expect it to be a .com, why pay that much money for a specialized web address?

    1. Re:Does it really matter? by jrumney · · Score: 2

      There is still a difference between the address bar and "going to google" these days? Is this in IE, because in all the browsers I use, the address bar is the search bar for at least 5 years now.

    2. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If I have a url, I don't want to search the url just so google can know about it! Unfortunately, most people don't care and autocomplete web addresses people find amazing.

    3. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      About half the users in my network just go to Google and type "youtube" anyways. When I say, "Go to the address bar, and...", it's a foreign language to them. And mobile devices now hide the address bar, sometimes making it incredibly frustrating and difficult trying to locate it. With half of all users just Google the link, and the other half expect it to be a .com, why pay that much money for a specialized web address?

      You think it was just a coincidence that Google-run Chrome was the first browser to push hiding address bar features?

    4. Re:Does it really matter? by dak664 · · Score: 2

      That automatic search is irritating to me, does a search whenever i misstype a local address like 192.168.1,1 so i turn it off in firefox. But already I just type google, amazon, mypi3, etc. and firefox adds the http:/// and .com if needed. Maybe not all browsers do that reliably enough to just list your internet address as your company name. And having the .org .net .edu .com suffix go to different sites would be a complication; choosing the priority of those would open a can of worms.

    5. Re:Does it really matter? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      In some of them, it's really annoying. Like say, I want to go to blogspot.com, I type 'blogspot' and then Cntl-Enter, hoping that it will take me directly to that website. Instead, it takes me to a Google page, where the site I want to go to is the first entry. Heck, I know where I want to go - stop sending me to the search engine. I'll use a search bar when I need it

      I preferred it when there were separate extensions where you could search in another bar for whatever it was you wanted.

    6. Re:Does it really matter? by billyoc903 · · Score: 1

      You pay that much so it will look good in printed ads and quarterly reports.

    7. Re:Does it really matter? by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      If you're not entering a proper address you don't know where you want to go and you DO need a search engine. You're just used to that search engine hitting the equivalent of "I'm feeling lucky" for you.

    8. Re:Does it really matter? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Except that I am. Using control-enter has been a standard way in browsers to automatically append www. before and .com after a site name, to form an URL. That works for me everywhere, but I've run into places where it breaks that, and forces me into the search page, adding a step to getting where I want. There should be a way of turning that off

    9. Re:Does it really matter? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except that I am. Using control-enter has been a standard way in browsers to automatically append www. before and .com after a site name, to form an URL. That works for me everywhere, but I've run into places where it breaks that, and forces me into the search page, adding a step to getting where I want. There should be a way of turning that off

      Really? it's a standard?

      What is the RFC#?

      No? so it isn't a standard.

  12. Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Anyone who calls a Domain Name an "Internet Address" probably doesn't know very much about either...

    1. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Precisely! At first, reading the headline, I thought that special IPv6 address blocks were procured for branding purposes. Like 2001:9009:1e::/40 or something like that. Then I saw that it was about custom TLDs. Incidentally, for this proliferation of TLDs, even IPv6 may not meet their needs

    2. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by hey! · · Score: 1

      Anyone who calls a Domain Name an "Internet Address" probably doesn't know very much about either...

      Prepare to lose on this one.

      Take "broadband"... What is the antonym of "broadband"?

      Why "narrowband", of course! Except according to the (unfortunately false) doctrine that the meaning of a word belongs to the community that coins it, the antonym of "broadband" ought to be "baseband". The "base" in "baseband" refers to zero hertz; a band that includes 0 Hz is the baseband in any kind of signal encoding scheme.

      In our alternate world ruled by engineers, "broadband" refers to a signal that does not have to include 0Hz, and which thus can be frequency multiplexed on media such as coaxial cable or fiber optics. This allows us to make use of that medium's full transmission capacity, which means we can serve more people with greater transmission bandwidth.

      The simplicity and precision of this way of using language warms my engineer's heart. A layer 1 signalling scheme that can be frequency shifted for multiplexing is "broadband"; one that cannot is "baseband". If you want to tell me a service is "fast", give me a number and a unit so I know whether you're talking throughput or latency.

      But you can't expect people trained in marketing (whom I have nothing against by the way) to use language with this kind of beautiful precision. Marketers deal in imprecision, and like it or not they have much, much more influence on the direction of language than we do.

      As soon as marketers wrapped their brains around "broadband" implying higher throughput on a shared medium, the term was pretty much destined, not just to lose its virginal purity, but to become their property as language pimps.

      DNS exists so ordinary people don't have to deal with actual Internet addresses. It makes Internet Protocol invisible to them, so as far as they're concerned the term "Internet Address" is up for grabs. I always assume when someone who is not a techie says "Internet Address" he's talking about a domain name or URL.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    3. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Anyone who calls a Domain Name an "Internet Address" probably doesn't know very much about either.

      Thank-you! Yes, I was confused when I read the title, trying to figure out how you brand an IPV4 / IPV6 address. Then I realized "Oh, they mean branded *domain name*."

    4. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by krray · · Score: 1

      Right there with you. 8.8.8.8 is pretty cool, but not "branded". I branded a dedicated MAC address once for my boss (Bob). The interlink was on "FACE4B0B". Branded. :)

    5. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by omnichad · · Score: 1

      It's like the ZIP code of the Internet address world. Shorthand, but it can still considered an address or at least part of one.

    6. Re: Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree. They will say IP address or uri/URL/fqdn/domain name and then finally Internet address. Wow I must be so smart to leave out so many other names.

    7. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This engineer says that "narrowband" is the antonym of "wideband". And the antonym of "baseband" is not "broadband", it is "modulated" or "passband" or sometimes "bandpass" (just as "lowpass" is sometimes used as a synonym for "baseband"). Even "DC-balanced" would be an antonym to "baseband".

    8. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by hey! · · Score: 2

      Word mean precisely what people agree them to mean, and that changes over time. Now go get grandpa his bourbon before he gets cranky.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That happens too, Facebook has 2a03:2880:f122:83:face:b00c:0:25de, note the "face:b00c" in the middle. They didn't obtain a particular subnet to do it, but the idea is out there

  13. How much longer can DNS survive? by Viol8 · · Score: 1

    I wonder if having to keep tabs on all these TLDs that seem to be created by anyone who fancies it is putting a heirarchical system designed to accomodate at first only a few (then expanded to a few hundred for country domains) under strain at the root server level? Sure technology advances, but the design hasn't really changed and I wonder if its still suited.

    1. Re:How much longer can DNS survive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DNS is pretty resilient.

      Most of the times, the DNS query won't even hit the top-level resolvers, because you have caches at every level: you system, you ISP, whatever your ISP uses to connect to the "Internet" (backbone, usually), and, of course, the top level resolvers. If you ever configured a domain, you know that it takes time for your domain to "propagate" (that is, it'll take a few minutes/hours for your customers to be able to "see" your site). This is a symptom of all that caching.

      So I doubt that a few more table entries will cause a world-wide DNS implosion.

      There are problem, of course. But most of it's problems are related to security (you can use a poorly configured DNS server to amplify a DDOS attack, for example) not performance or resilience.

    2. Re:How much longer can DNS survive? by unixisc · · Score: 1

      The mapping may have to be flipped. Instead of being domain name:: internet address, it will have to be internet address::domain name. Not sure whether it would be just a global prefix or the entire address

  14. Domain Names, not "Internet Addresses" by Ross+Finlayson · · Score: 1

    Anyone who calls a Domain Name an "Internet Address" probably doesn't know very much about either.

  15. $30,000 for a TLD by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

    Provided that you can "rent" subdomains the same way we do now for ".com" and the like, $30,000 is not that much (just need 3,000 subdomains applicants)

    --
    Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
  16. Um no. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    1. .web for $135 million? Everything is a web site, and nothing serious is going to want ".web". Are we on .com boom #2, or is this a new way to do underhanded things with money?

    2. Hear that? That's the sound of me blocking branded TLDs. As long as enough admins do it early enough, they'll be a liability.

    1. Re: Um no. by corychristison · · Score: 1

      I think many people believe .web will be the next .com only because .com is so saturated. Even really obscure names are being registered and squat on.

      Personally I also believe .app will be incredibly popular. Google bought it for $25 Million USD. If the price of a .app domain is reasonable (around .com's price), it will do well. If they try to price it higher I'm not certain it will do as well.

  17. since since by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Literally Microsoft office could catch the errors these "editors" miss.

    1. Re:since since by unixisc · · Score: 1

      Maybe they are using emacs }:-)

  18. huh? by eples · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I've been using the internet for a long time but help me out here. What is the goal here?

    www.ibm.ibm? or just www.ibm?
    ford.ford? www.cars.ford? drive.a.ford?
    gmail.google instead of gmail.google.com?

    You can mark me down as a firm "whatever".

    --
    I'm a 2000 man.
    1. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      productname.company or service.company

      fusion.ford
      bigblue.ibm
      maps.google

      techsupport.comcast

      etc...

    2. Re: huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Because an added .com onto all them makes me so hard to remember. /sarcasm

    3. Re:huh? by wvmarle · · Score: 1

      You probably didn't use it long enough.

      It's back to basics, back to the time there was no such thing as "top level domain" (the generic .com/.org/etc and the country ones) and e-mail addresses were like username@digital or username@ibm

    4. Re:huh? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      You don't have to add a second-level. Not only that, but using www for a web prefix has fallen out of favor.

      You're more likely to see something like http://google/ at some point.

    5. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What is the goal here?

      cash grab.

      a good ol' fashioned american cash grab - proof icann will forever and always be an *american* organization, even after the 'handover'. they're too fucking greedy and capitalistic to be anything else.

    6. Re: huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Considering Ford's URL to their hybrid focus is ford.com/cars/fusion/trim/hybrid
      Isn't hybridfusion.ford easier to remember, and easier to market?

    7. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe

      https://google/:service
      https://apple/:product
      https://ford/:model
      https://hbo/:program
      http://net.comcast.comcast/:incompetence

    8. Re:huh? by Sloppy · · Score: 1

      A decade or two ago (I'm not really sure when he wrote it)) Brad Templeton suggested something like this as a fix for various problems, especially trademark. My take is that the basic idea is that TLDs are already meaningless, so diversifying them into increased meaninglessness does no damage while offering some benefits. (e.g. makes monopolizing certain words harder, makes it easier to try out new registration policies, etc)

      --
      As copyright owner of this comment, I authorize everyone to defeat any technological measure which limits access to it.
    9. Re: huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Considering Ford's URL to their hybrid focus is ford.com/cars/fusion/trim/hybrid
      Isn't hybridfusion.ford easier to remember, and easier to market?

      Except that if they really gave a shit, they could have the URL be hybridfusion.ford.com *today*, with no regulatory change and practically no cost.

      In fact, I'd argue that hybridfusion.ford.com is *better* from a marketing materials perspective, as the '.com' suffix immediately labels it as "this is an internet address". hybridfusion.ford doesn't have that immediate association, so takes the viewer a second or so extra to process. ("What is this? Is it some fancy typography?)

    10. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which will force the browsers away from the bad design decision of combining URL bar with search.

      Going forward, typing "google" should take one to https://google , not search for the term. But that's what Firefox and Chrome do.

    11. Re:huh? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm. Ford still has a legacy /8 IPv4 address block, I see. Maybe Google's first mass-market autonomous vehicle will be a Ford, eh? Or Ford's will be a Google, or whatever. Hostile takeover maybe, given the culture clash, though, so don't call your broker right away. ;-)

    12. Re: huh? by Sparowl · · Score: 1

      The question is: How many people actually remember those links, vs just going to google and typing in "Ford Fusion" and clicking the long hyperlink. In essence, are these top level domains going to change how the majority of people get to places?

    13. Re:huh? by inking · · Score: 1

      mail.google is quite a bit catchier than mail.google.com. It's just removing redundancies.

    14. Re:huh? by omnichad · · Score: 1

      If it's a single word with no spaces, a DNS lookup could easily precede a search being performed. Combining the URL bar with search protects against malware for the masses who mistype brand names all day long.

    15. Re:huh? by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      I think this is a roundabout way to eliminate ".com". While the collection of TLDs probably made sense in the early days of the internet, it doesn't really make a lot of sense any more. .com has become so ubiquitous that it basically means "internet".

      So it should be eliminated. But everybody wants a .com. So they need to make the company TLD a must-have. They do this by making this exclusive. Once google and other big companies have them, everyone elswill want one.

    16. Re:huh? by michael_wojcik · · Score: 1

      back to the time there was no such thing as "top level domain" (the generic .com/.org/etc and the country ones) and e-mail addresses were like username@digital or username@ibm

      When was this, exactly? The original TLDs were defined in RFC 920, which was published in 1984. The TCP Internet didn't even exist until 1983.

      @-style email addresses are as old as email itself - Ray Tomlinson introduced them in the early '70s - but the @-suffix named a host, not a domain. This was also true for the original SMTP (which is older than DNS). The examples in RFC 821 show qualified forward- and reverse-paths.

      An address like "username@ibm" would require either a direct connection to a system named "ibm", using something like the public host files that were circulated prior to the widespread adoption of DNS; or the equivalent of a DNS MX record. DNS itself of course would have used a TLD for MX records, and I don't recall an @-based email addressing system that didn't.

      UUCP bang-paths used unqualified hostnames, but again those were hostnames, not some sort of unqualified domain name.

      The utility of the old gTLDs (com, org, edu, net, gov, mil) is questionable; in theory, before use of com/org/net became unrestricted, they could provide a small amount of information, and resolve some name collisions, though there are probably more collisions within the historic gTLD namespaces (edu is a good example, as many US universities use conflicting abbreviations like "MSU") than among them.

      The new gTLDs are pointless. The vast majority of users won't care about them at all, and most of those who do find them unnecessary and annoying. They're an IANA scam targeting marketers, narcissistic executives, and organizations with an inflated sense of self-importance (hello, Google).

  19. Cui bono? by mi · · Score: 1

    A $185,000 application fee and annual $30,000 operation fee will keep mom-and-pop shops away from their own domains.

    Where is the money going to? Who approves the applications and what are the mechanisms for appeals and disputes?

    What sort of framework is there to ensure, the fees are not excessive and the services thus purchased — of high quality?

    Is it done by the best means known — via vigorous competition — or somehow else? How?

    Is this new mechanism related to and/or enabled by the transfer of control of the Internet towards an international body? And, if so, is that the reason, Google and other mega-corporations pushed for the transfer so hard?

    --
    In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
  20. TLD not copywrite protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The company Google has copywrite protection for their name. However, if they establish TLD .google then google or Google or GOOGLE (since domain names are not case sensitive) cannot be copywrite protected. So anybody should be able to use google without the company Google's permission or complaint.

    ThisIsStupid.google
    Idiots.at.google

    They also should not be able to refuse to register a domain: Use.Bing.Not.Google

    1. Re:TLD not copywrite protected by omnichad · · Score: 1

      Copywrite has nothing to do with intellectual property (copyright does). And this is trademark. You're a moron.

    2. Re: TLD not copywrite protected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IP
      Intellectual Property
      Trade mark: it's a mark that is used for trade. To identify. Logo, brand on cattle 'brand', shape of Coca Cola bottle, soundif harely davidson motorcycle, lvmh hand bad logo all over bag. These are trade identifiers.
      Trademark
      Copy right : copy=print. Print rights. Protection of your print from copy.
      Copyright
      All these are incentives for businesses to spend and invest. You build your brand, get well known. Someone counterfeits you. Taking all your good will and recognition cost for free. Also confusing your customers (Latham act)

      Patent: physical or intellectual property 'copyright' similar. Much more complicated. Publically disclosed to prevent copy.

      Trade secret : something secret you should not patent.

      This is something every American should know. It should be taught in high school. Along with basic accounting.

      It you are in IT, designing software or hardware, 0please study this tonight. It's why you sign those Employmeny agreements, intellectual property assignments, and non enforceable non compete (trade secrets) agreements.

      Then you can call bullshit on them.

    3. Re:TLD not copywrite protected by BenBoy · · Score: 1

      No no no! Copy on write should give just enough protection, without demanding unnecessary extra space. That's surely what is meant here ...

  21. .xyz ... the spam domain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I run a mail server and have gotten thousands upon thousands of emails from domains ending in .xyz and they are ALL spam. Ditto for all of the other new TLD's. Seems like a race to the bottom if you ask me.

  22. well spent money ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What does Icann do with all the money ?

    I'm looking for a .com domain name and it looks this site was already registered but is expired for more than 60 days (according to whois.net).
    The whois of icann does not know about this domain name (WTF ? how could it be ?)

    The actual (or should I say the ancient) registrar says I can't register for a nominal fee but I can spend 70 dollars for them to try to get it with no guarantee.
    For me it's no more than a crook system.

    Should the registrar be allowed to hold a domain name forever ? Do they pay for this ? Why the icann whois is outdated ?

    If I fill a dispute to try to get this domain name, How could I be sure the croo.. registrar will reregister it to sell it to me for $$$$.
    If the domain name was supposed to be release (nd is not) and I'm the first to candidate, will I get it or could the old registrar to sell it for auction ?

     

    1. Re:well spent money ? by Existential+Wombat · · Score: 2

      What does Icann do with all the money ?

      It’s a non-profit. So in order to not make a profit they give it to their directors.

  23. holy.shit.this.is.retarded by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This is going to create a TON of unnecessary subdomains just to get catchphrase addresses like Drive.A.Ford as someone else mentioned. This plays right into java's hands as an easy obfuscation techniques for links. You won't be able to easily tell if it's a object, reference, string, or an actual url. ICANN just gave virus writers a whole new avenue of creative obfuscation. Throw in a bunch of unicode % characters like XSS kids love to do and you'll get an obscenely long url that most admins won't care to decipher.
    not.a.string(",xyz");
    Imagine.a.command.and.control.subdomain.chain.for.a.botnet.embedded.in.java.that.is.actually.a.link.and.not.a.string
    Just a stupid example why this could be a bad idea if subdomain chaining for cheesy catchphrase addresses becomes the norm.
    Yes it's a good idea in order to open up the address space a lot but everything has a pro and con. I'm sure ICANN thought this issue through long and hard before lining their pockets with billions (sarcasm).

  24. I hate this... by dafradu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I received a letter from my bank and it had a "link" to their website, i bet 99% of the people who got that mail didn't realize banco.bradesco was actually a website. It didn't have a http or www that most people now are familiar with, it was just banco.bradesco, you could think they missed a space if you were not careful.

    Years having to tell people they don't need to write http:/// now they "changed" it and people will begging to ask again - "banco.bradesco? So www.branco.bradesco? How about http, this one have that thing too? How do i open it? Oh just a regular site? " :-(

    1. Re:I hate this... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No bank should ever promote their hostname with http:// prepended. httpS on the other hand...

    2. Re:I hate this... by Waccoon · · Score: 1

      Pretty soon it will be impossible to even reach a TLD without the use of a search engine. How helpful that all the major web browsers are adding Google(tm), Yahoo(tm), and Bing(tm) directly to the URL bar.

    3. Re:I hate this... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      One of the sillier ones that used to exist was http://walmart.horse/ Tried to put that on a forum so someone else could share the nonsense and turns out the forum wouldn't allow it as a URL. Wonder how often that's going to happen with some of these irregular TLDs.

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
    4. Re:I hate this... by Reziac · · Score: 1

      Well, there's a case in point: Slashdot appended a / to the URL that I typed, apparently believing that it couldn't be real. (No, I didn't typo it, I checked.)

      --
      ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  25. Helps prevent spoofing by Solandri · · Score: 2

    The U.S. government screwed this up royally when it put its site for people to get their free credit report on the domain annualcreditreport.com. The credit agencies all set up similar sites with similar domains, which would give you your credit report but require you to submit a credit card and would try to subscribe you to their credit monitoring services. For years, Google searches would return these spoofing sites instead of the real one as the top result, doubtless due to aggressive SEO. It seems to have stabilized on the real one as the top result now, though I don't know if that's due to Google clamping down on SEO exploits, or if they just hard-coded the government site as the top result. All of this could have been prevented if the government set it up as a .gov TLD, since companies can't set up sites under that domain.

    Likewise, a .apple, .ibm, .canon, .samsung TLD would prevent spoofed sites. I tend to side with a strong hierarchical structure to domain names (company.com, organization.org, network.net, etc). But not everyone realized the importance of nabbing a .com domain early on, resulting in headaches which have done nothing but make lawyers rich. Granting an organizations-specific TLD if the organization is large enough may be a solution to this, provided you also prohibit said organization from taking over similarly named .com sites like applesucks.com. Once you own a TLD that only you can make sites on, it's clear whether or not a site is your "real" site, so name confusion and trademark dilution claims should no longer apply.

    1. Re:Helps prevent spoofing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That credit report site isn't actually government owned or operated, it's just mandated. Credit Source LLC runs the site, which is probably a joint venture funded by the reporting agencies

  26. Only buffoons think the names in DNS are important by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The actual thing that matters in the DNS is authority. Not being under a TLD means there is one less entity that can screw you. That's the point.

  27. Fuck security, I give up. by sootman · · Score: 1

    I've long held onto a naïve dream that we might achieve SOME level of security by teaching users how to read domain names, enabling status bars (note: FUCK ALL CURRENT BROWSER MAKERS that turn them off by default) so users can look at URLs before clicking on them, and NOT blindly trusting that little green padlock (oh look! I'm securely connected to totally-legit-bank.ru) but for that to happen, domain names MUST be human-parseable. I don't expect everyone to become a cybersecurity expert, but if you can learn and follow a basic rules of traffic safety, you can learn follow a few basic rules of online safety.* Oh well. Now I guess I can spend my time dreaming of riding ponies and winning the lottery.

    No sense mentioning how much harder it will make it for everyone who writes make-this-FQDN-a-link code. Lots of systems will make google.com clickable but I doubt anyone BUT google will do the same for blog.google. Or we can just render EVERYTHING with a dot as a link. :-/

    * Please spare me the obvious jokes about OMG EVERYONE IS TEH WORST DRIVERS!!!!!11

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  28. That's a lot of $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Q. Why are gTLD's necessary?
    A. They're not.

    But!.... They're a great idea for whoever in ICANN came up with them:

    So far $233 million in auction proceeds (after expenses). And it's not yet ear marked for anything.

    https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions/proceeds

    Compare that to their P&L and they are flush with cash. I wonder what they're going to do with it all? I suggest raises, raises for everybody!

    From eyeballing their site, there's still roughly another 140 gTLDs that are already set to go to auction. Some big ones too, like BANK/MONEY/INSURANCE/LOVE/AUTO.... etc... They could easily hit billions in cash from this. Compare that kind of money to their existing P&L which is showing about $40m/yr:

    https://www.icann.org/en/about/financials/new-gtld-program-cash-flow-09sep11-en.pdf

    So that answers the question 'Why?'.

    1. Re:That's a lot of $ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ugh, my bad, that's an old P&L, but you get the point.

  29. So what by downright · · Score: 1

    Google will still make you pay to compete for ranking for your trademarks unless you successfully sue them. Why drink this koolaid unless Google is going to stop profiting off of trademark infringement.

  30. A complete disgrace by maxanderson1976 · · Score: 1

    this is because of the new ICANN system. A complete disgrace. Abhorrent.

  31. Proof read! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Proof read your articles before you post, damn it! Sure, it takes you extra time to read it again, but it doesn't waste the time of all your readers by having them read the same stuff twice, then wonder what the hell...?

    "Hundreds of new top-level domain names are approved. The single most popular in use is .xyz. Hundreds of new top-level domain names are approved. The single most popular in use is .xyz."

    Since you won't catch your own mistakes, get SOMEONE ELSE to proof read!

  32. Please Namespace the Internet by allo · · Score: 2

    Stop domain grabbing and forbid to use domains, which do not match the purpose.

    a .com domain should be commercial, some american site should use .us. Use other country codes for offers in the country (i.e. bmw.de for german BMW site, bmw.us for the american one linking to bmw.com for some online shop with car parts), restrict .info to non-affiliated information sites, etc.

    With such a rule, people could finally get free TLDs again. Try to get a four letter domain. Everything already registered, mostly redirecting to the main domain. Let some organization with initials bmw have bmw.org! some person with initials BMW gets bmw.name and bmw.email is reserved for a mail provider.

    TLDs have failed. People just use country codes or .com and redirect others. Only exceptions are people using cool domain hacks (think of del.icio.us) or nice domains in the new namespaces like hilbert.space. But that are mostly nerds, anyway.

  33. Approval? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And who exactly decides if it's approved? What terms and conditions do they apply to it?

  34. No. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What a fucking mess. Bring structure back and enforce it. ( so you dont end up with random for profit product companies grabbing .net or org TLDs, for example )

  35. Scrap DNS already! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When the hell is DNS going to die and get replaced with vastly superior newsgroup hierarchy?

    Kills off need for crappy censoring search indexers, left-to-right order is way more logical, less overhead server-wise.
    Easier to group sites. Objectively easier to manage spam issues.
      Easier to prevent clickjacking simply through the order being reversed. A common issue with clickjacking was stuff like facebook.com.profile.com or some other nonsense. Sub-domains are THE worst thing to happen to DNS.
    Custom TLDs are actually lesser since they will be expensive as hell and generally more strict, besides a few well known scrubby ones like .xyz, being banned at least once a week across the world.

    tld.service.domain.sub-domains/dir/file.ext
    Beeeeautifu'.
    tld will point only to nations, be it countries, or even space stations and planets in the future.
    Service is where all the tv, bank, shop, charity, web, app, software, email and other such nonsense now goes. No generic service. Fuck that .com noise again.
    The other technical hurdles already have been worked out.
    Newsgroups are only so 'shitty' because they are niche.

  36. What About Symbols? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You know like Prince did?

    The URL formerly known as http://www.google.com could be represented by six free-hand squiggles.