Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The Beginnings of a TLD Free-For-All?

ScuttleMonkey posted more than 6 years ago | from the bad-ideas dept.

The Internet 489

Mordok-DestroyerOfWo writes "According to the BBC, ICANN is considering opening up the wholesale creation of TLDs by private industry. While I'm sure this is done for the convenience of the companies and has nothing to do with the several thousand dollars they will be charging for each registration, I was curious what the tech community at large thought about this idea. It seems to me that this will simply open the doors for a never-ending stream of TLD squatters."

cancel ×

489 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Sweet (5, Funny)

Jailbrekr (73837) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907513)

Now I can finally realize my dream and create the ".isgay" TLD.

Re:Sweet (2, Interesting)

Oxy the moron (770724) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907683)

You can have that one. I'm going to register the ".votecowboyneal" TLD.

Re:Sweet (4, Funny)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907703)

Dibs on .slashdot

Re:Sweet (2, Funny)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907819)

God DAMMIT!! You fucking squatter POS!

So Ummmmmm...... I'll give you $50 bucks for it. $100? $200? Come on!

Seriously name your price :)

Re:Sweet (1)

Actually, I do RTFA (1058596) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908093)

Seriously name your price :)

Basically, ICANN is trying to eliminate squatting by stealing all their profits. FTFA:

"If there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder."

I wonder how much .search will go for, my guess would be several hundred million at least.

Re:Sweet (4, Funny)

UnknowingFool (672806) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907961)

Or how about my dreams of a .cowboyneal TLD? Tell you what you can have cowboyneal.isgay and I'll take isgay.cowboyneal. Yours is for most normal folk while mine is for the Yoda speaking /. crowd.

first penis (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907521)

8==D

Re:first penis (1, Funny)

JustOK (667959) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907737)

yet, .8==D wouldn't be a troll...

Re:first penis (2, Funny)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908065)

Eight equals D?

I thought D equaled 13...

Now I feel stupid (2, Funny)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907987)

I read the summary 5 times wondering why the hell a ICANN was messing with TLDs [wikipedia.org] . Ya, oh... the "other" tld... right. um.. moving along now...

Worst idea ever (5, Insightful)

kramer2718 (598033) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907537)

Creation of new domains is like extortion. For example, Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids, disney.parks, disney.film, etc. just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse.

Re:Worst idea ever (2, Interesting)

oahazmatt (868057) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907557)

Creation of new domains is like extortion. For example, Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids, disney.parks, disney.film, etc. just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse.
Of course, they'd be too embarassed to buy disney.porn or disney.xxx, so that's not really a valid point. :)

Re:Worst idea ever (5, Informative)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907605)

When was the last time a multi-million dollar corporation was embarrassed about anything?

Corporations are just like people, except, you know, completely different.

Re:Worst idea ever (0, Offtopic)

lilomar (1072448) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907655)

Oops, wrong reply button. This was supposed to be attached to oahazmatt's post.

Re:Worst idea ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23908017)

It was, someone broke the ajaxy reply function a while back and nobody's bothered to fix it.

Re:Worst idea ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23908049)

Not really. At disney.xxx and disney.porn they'll put page with "Nothing to see here. Move along."

Re:Worst idea ever (3, Interesting)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908051)

They can buy them and have them resolve to nothing, or they can let someone else buy them and have them resolve to hardcore pornography.

Not buying them is a lot more embarrassing.

Re:Worst idea ever (3, Informative)

Rinisari (521266) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907619)

They should visit film.disney.com, kids.disney.com, and fun.disney.com. The DNS works backwards, and people should learn that just as they learn how an email address works and how to work web forms.

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907933)

You don't seem to understand a TLD. The far right controls the far left; disney.com doesn't control disney.*, it controls *.disney.com

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

lgarner (694957) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908079)

He understands it just fine. There's nothing incorrect or invalid with his idea, except that it relies on people understanding DNS. The problem is that a porno site at any disney.* could impact Disney. Especially if someone capitalizes on misspellings in the TLD.

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908129)

what, like disney.cum?

ROTFLOL (1)

hummassa (157160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907995)

Not much more to say here. The notion of "people" knowing how an email address works or working web forms made me cry.

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

Junior Samples (550792) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907685)

Creation of new domains is like extortion. For example, Disney will have to pay for disney.fun, disney.kids, disney.parks, disney.film, etc. just to make sure that those don't turn into porn sites or worse.
I thought that Disney was a registered trademark. This alone should be enough to stop illicit use.

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

Dr. Donuts (232269) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907935)

If you aren't in the same trade, then it's not a problem nor is it illicit.

For example, disney.usedcars. Unless Disney gets into the automotive business, there would be no trademark issue.

Re:Worst idea ever (2, Informative)

gabebear (251933) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908111)

Famous trademarks have more protection. Look at Trademark dillution [wikipedia.org]

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907825)

Well, if people can remember to just go to .disney, this problem solves itself.

Re:Worst idea ever (5, Insightful)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907877)

.com was originally supposed to mean strictly commercial sites was it not? Moving away from that original intent, it's become ingrained in most casual user's minds that this is the obligatory suffix of a typical web address. .net and .org are only sightly as recognizable as additional suffixes. I think it would be difficult to get people comfortable with the idea that the TLD can be any word you want. If anything .com will just be seen as the most legitimate address and anything else will be automatically suspect.

Disney already has registered TLDs for the localized versions of it's site for other regions and any further categorical distinctions for content can be accomplished with subdomains. There's not really any need for Disney or any other large corps to make use of unique TLDs. While this doesn't stop spammers from setting up their own dubious TLDs and trying to lure people there, after a few publicized incidents of scams I think it would become fairly common knowledge that people should stick to trusting .com or the localized regional version thereof.

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907985)

It won't be automatically suspect here. It will get banned on my DNS just like .info and .mobi already are.

Re:Worst idea ever (3, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908043)

Great observation. That is exactly why any TLD that is not .COM automatically has to have less value. .ORG has slightly less value since that is seen as charitable and foundations, but .NET is even a little suspect in most cases.

Once you move farther away from .COM you see progressively less and less value to the point that the only value left is one of speculation.

Hence, this new development is a squatters paradise. This might be a good thing then.

We can strictly regulate squatting on the .COM's and let all the squatters speculate and have their market of illusions (delusions really) on any other randomly created TLD :)

Re:Worst idea ever (0, Troll)

SeePage87 (923251) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907921)

To be fair, Disney, through its subsidiaries, is the largest producer of porn in the world.

Re:Worst idea ever (1)

ChakatSanddancer (1106243) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907979)

Yeah, damn those spammers with their phone number in a different area code! And those lousy people who have squatted Springfield. Don't they know that there should be a flat namespace with no collisions? I mean, think of all the kramers you get confused with, wouldn't it be better if there was just one?

3rd post & (4, Funny)

tinkerghost (944862) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907565)

I still get to call dibs on XXX?
what is wrong with you people?!

Bad Idea....Bad Bad Bad (1)

haplo21112 (184264) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907577)

If domain squatting, front running, and everything else of the like has taught us anything its that this is a bad bad bad! Idea.

Never mind the levels of confusion it would be creating.

Re:Bad Idea....Bad Bad Bad (5, Interesting)

Scorchio (177053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908135)

Never mind the levels of confusion it would be creating.

Especially when I start registering common file extensions, like .exe, .bat, .jpg, .txt...

Probably a bad idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907585)

I like having only a (relatively) few TLDs. Typos would just get an error, instead of a squatter.

This could be dangerous. Things like ".gov" domains are trustworthy (well, as far as you can trust the government). Typos could be costly if the site is painted correctly.

I think I'll get www.irs.gob and retire early.

Good lord, why? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907587)

The TLDs, theoretically, categorize content (com for commercial, org for non-profits, etc.). Opening up the creation of new "categories" to anyone with a few thousand dollars will just lead to the .com rush all over again. Even a few thousand is no disincentive to multi-billion dollar companies. First race: Which of MS, Yahoo or Google will snag ".search" or ".srch" first? It's not a matter of cost, since we know any of them could afford the price. It's just which one manages to phone it in first.

Re:Good lord, why? (1)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907613)

And of course, will the owner of .search allow anyone else to register on it?

Re:Good lord, why? (2, Insightful)

hummassa (157160) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908095)

The TLDs, theoretically, categorize content (com for commercial, org for non-profits, etc.).
They do a lousy job.

Opening up the creation of new "categories" to anyone with a few thousand dollars will just lead to the .com rush all over again. Even a few thousand is no disincentive to multi-billion dollar companies.
Just open up the root namespace. Instead of www.google.com, I type google. My email starts begin sergei@gmail. Let structured entities have subnames and do away with .com, .org. and .info altogether.

First race: Which of MS, Yahoo or Google will snag ".search" or ".srch" first? It's not a matter of cost, since we know any of them could afford the price. It's just which one manages to phone it in first.
The verb is "to google" :-) Google will win. :-)

ICANN should make domains more expensive (2, Interesting)

xutopia (469129) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907595)

If domains were expensive enough we wouldn't have squatters. Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy?

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (2, Funny)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907667)

Assuming how much money they spend remains the same and that domains are roughly $10 to register (+ or -), instead of registering thousands, they will registers fourties.

Layne

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (1)

i_ate_god (899684) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907701)

Because when I register .search for $3000, then sell it to Microsoft for $3,000,000 or Google for $3,000,000,000, then I've made a great investment

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (5, Insightful)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907705)

Raising prices will just force out the casual user. Right now I can get hosting and domain registration for $35-50 a year. I like having my own domain for personal use, but charging $250 a year for the registration it would make it a really expensive luxury.
For any vaguely competent squatter, ads and possible sale of the domain would still make up for most of even that cost, so they wouldn't suffer at all.

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907759)

Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy?

Of course, that would limit domain names to basically the corporate-only world, since how many private individuals would pay that much just to have their blog or family website at its own name?

You want to get rid of squatters? Simple:
1) Elimintate "tasting" completely.
2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give address within 30 days.

That would, however, reduce the registrars' profits, so you'll never see them happen.

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (5, Insightful)

GleeBot (1301227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907857)

2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give
address within 30 days.
Your second point assumes that domain names are registered exclusively for putting up Web sites. There are plenty of legitimate uses for domain names that don't require putting up a public page for the entire Internet to see. Heck, there may even be some value in someone creating, say, a parody site that looks like a page of ads, or doing so to hide a real site.

I'd rather not have a registrar deciding whether or not to revoke my domain name registration just because they didn't think the content was non-trivial.

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (5, Interesting)

metamatic (202216) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907879)

You missed

3) Prohibit exchange of domain names. Don't want one? Let it expire and it goes back into the pool. No, you can't sell it, any more than you can sell your telephone number.

But again, this wouldn't benefit the registrars, so it won't happen.

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908077)

They changed the rules in Australia about selling domains and its going to have a very nasty consequence. We are already talking to several member of Parliament about a new law that gives control of .au over to Ip Australia which is the Aussie Trademark Office. Once that law gets passed, the aunic is out of business and only because they upset enough geeks who are determined not to have the .com.au end up with the same name space pollution as the .com has. In the end, their greed will be their undoing.

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (3, Interesting)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907941)

I agree with you. What you suggest is similar to what is required outside of "cyberspace".

However, the 30 days part is a little short. Perhaps even 6 months would be short. It seems you want a real substantive site, and sometimes getting the domain name first is an integral part of the business plan. Getting funding can take even longer, which is sometimes required to get a functional site online.

Requiring that the DNS is not parked, and is in use by an actual server which gives up a page describing your site with contact information and a construction link might be enough.

However, Web sites are not the only services which are used by a domain name either. I actually have plenty of domain names that are only used for email and other services too.

So I like your idea, but you would have to carefully consider what are the requirements of a domain being considered "live".

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23908007)

So you won't be able to register a domain for use in email, ftp server, etc, etc?

domain names != web

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (1)

Varitek (210013) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908071)

2) Require an actual site (not just a page of ads) go live at any give address within 30 days.
DNS is for more services than just HTTP.

Re:ICANN should make domains more expensive (1)

aceofspades1217 (1267996) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907839)

If domains were expensive enough we wouldn't have squatters. Say you would have to pay 250$ to purchase a domain name. How many would a squatter be willing to buy?
Yea than the question is...would anyone be willing to buy.

Generic TLDs caused the problems (4, Insightful)

btempleton (149110) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907621)

It's OK if the TLDs are brands (not generic like com, net or org) and there is some factor which limits them to resale use (otherwise we just punt the .com problem up a level.)

The big mistake was having generics in the first place. Trademark law figured out hundreds of years ago you don't grant people monopoly ownership rights in generic terms. To get ownership rights in a term it must be non-generic, not have meaning other than the meaning you created in it. Thus nobody owns the word "Apple" with regards to fruits, but you can own it with regard to computers, or records. Even better are made-up terms like Xerox and Kodak.

Anyway, we goofed by selling things like drugstore.com. We should fix that where we can, and not make it worse. If names are for resale only (you can't have your own sites in a TLD you own except for nic.TLD) and the names can't have any meaning for you to get a monopoly, then it can work.

Things like .xxx and .mobi and there rest are bad because they have a meaning, and grant a monopoly in internet naming to that meaning.

Full details are at http://www.templetons.com/brad/dns/ [templetons.com]

Re:Generic TLDs caused the problems (4, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907837)

.mobi is bad for a different reason - it ties a specific service (web for mobile devices) to a domain name. Having a .xxx domain name isn't a terribly bad idea, but it needs to be done 20 years ago before all of the porn sites got .com domains. If domain names worked more like trademarks, with each TLD representing an area, then this would work well - you could have apple.computer and apple.music being different companies (well, until Apple Inc. licensed the trademark from Apple Records).

The other part of the reason why this is potentially a bad idea is technical. The DNS scales very well because it's a tree. Hardly anyone queries the root servers (a couple of years ago 95% of queries were answered with NXDOMAIN) because their ISPs caching name servers store the locations of the most common TLDs (.com, .org, .cctld, etc.). The load is then spread around the TLD servers (and, again, most common queries are cached). Adding new TLDs increases the number of hits on the root servers, which makes those 14 machines a lot more critical, which is probably what ICANN is trying to do.

ICANN showing their irrelevance (4, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907623)

As if their total lack of real control over domain registration wasn't bad enough already, now they want to sell TLDs? Come on, we're close enough to arbitrary mish-mash as it is.

The only good that could potentially come from this would be if the spammers found it worthwhile to start placing all their spamvertised domains under TLDs like .viagra and .pirate, so it would be easier to screen them.

But we all know how likely that is..

Finally... (1)

uncle-gendo (1247352) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907643)

I can have .xom !

DNS has failed anyway (1)

giorgiofr (887762) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907645)

DNS as it was intended to be has failed. Nowadays we have a flat namespace where all names have a .com appended at the end. Nobody wants to use anything else (yeah, I realize there are uses for .net and .org but they just don't compare). I believe some new naming system needs to be devised; unfortunately, it cannot be centralized (or it will be somehow exploited by the running org) but it cannot be fragmentary either (or it won't be a naming system at all). Maybe we should realize that a world wide effort to name our network resources consistently and cooperatively is doomed to fail. Perhaps we should start using all kinds of weird suffixes, but then again who's going to collect the money for them? And if nobody does, what stops me from registering tens of thousands of them?
Does anyone have original, innovative thoughts and ideas on this issue?

Re:DNS has failed anyway (1)

wooferhound (546132) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907855)

So , I could buy the .xxx TLD, then sell Domain Names to anybody that wanted the .xxx extension, 0r any other TLD. If I do this enough, I can takeover and become bigger than ICANN...

Focus on country code. (3, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907887)

Let each country manage its own servers.

Does anyone in the USofA really care if Britain allows sitename.xxx.uk ?

Does anyone in Germany care that there is a sitename.mobile.us ?

All the .com and .org and .net and ... were okay when the Internet was tiny and mostly USofA only. But it showed a complete lack of forward planning. Decentralize the names. Let each country work it out. Particularly for the countries using alphabets that don't match 100% with USofA English.

Re:DNS has failed anyway (2, Funny)

linuxpyro (680927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907901)

Hey, I don't know about you but I'm find just memorizing IP addresses.

Re:DNS has failed anyway (4, Insightful)

93 Escort Wagon (326346) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908039)

Hey, I don't know about you but I'm find just memorizing IP addresses.

IPv4 or IPv6?

Re:DNS has failed anyway (1)

cstdenis (1118589) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908155)

That was once a good answer, but with name based virtual hosting, that just doesn't work.

Also, with IP6 coming it's not so convenient. Memorizing 4 octets isn't hard, but I don't want to have to memorize IP6 addresses.

offtopic (0, Offtopic)

indi0144 (1264518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907653)

mood me offtopic if you want but I have noted an increase in a load of storm-like spam mail containing this subject: "2008 Olympic Games are under the threat" It has an IP link. That spam penetrated several levels of my antispam filters. Be aware. Just a little social service.

Pointless (3, Insightful)

pla (258480) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907657)

I fail to see the point of allowing new TLDs... How many do we have now, yet unless you have a .com, .net, .org, or .edu (and even then, most people stop at the first one or two of those), you may as well have a random unpronounceable string of characters, because no one will find you except via links.

This will have one and only one useful effect - It will add more TLDs we can safely block as spam sources (yeah, suuuure we see a lot of legit .biz and .info email) without giving them a second thought.

Re:Pointless (3, Insightful)

GleeBot (1301227) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907925)

Or maybe we should just get rid of the entire second tier of domain names altogether. Why bother having .org or .com when you can just have .slashdot or .disney (to use some common examples from this discussion)?

From a user interface perspective, I can see a lot of value in this. Asking people to remember if a site is a .org or a .com or a .net was probably a mistake to begin with.

From an administrative perspective, it seems to open a big can of worms. The current TLD divisions at least have some sort of reasoning behind them. Arbitrary TLDs will put a lot more load on the TLD registry.

I cannot wait... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907659)

http://first.post

IPV6 would be helped by this (0, Troll)

smellsofbikes (890263) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907669)

Coz we'd go through all the IP addresses we currently have remaining in about 30 milliseconds once this was opened up.

I sure wish I had a job where I could print money, like the ICANN does. Can you *imagine* the kind of money they'll get if this goes through? Ferraris for everyone.

Re:IPV6 would be helped by this (1)

Intron (870560) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907989)

Why would adding domain names increase IP usage? Are there suddenly going to be millions more computers connected to the net?

Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (4, Funny)

ALecs (118703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907689)

I've had it with this hugely confusing system of names and TLDs, so here's my proposal:

We drop DNS completely and establish a completely numerical system of finding things on the internet. Each machine will just get a simple number. No more wondering what everything is called - just type in the number and presto - you're there! No fighting, no trademarks, no registrations, just "Here's your number pal, have fun."

Should work fine - right?

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (2)

ShadowRangerRIT (1301549) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907739)

How did this get an insightful mod? It was obviously going for funny.

I mod that moderation... (1)

ALecs (118703) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907793)

-1 didntgetit

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (3, Insightful)

jalet (36114) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907749)

Just 'rm /etc/resolv.conf' and you're done.

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (3, Informative)

klubar (591384) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907791)

This system worked for nearly 100 years with phone numbers. People got used to dialing just digits--and they published directories for those who didn't know the digits. With only 10 digits, nearly every family and business in the US could have there very own, private 10-digit number.

There were a could of crazy schemes to add letters to the phone dial pad--but could you image how complex and confusing that would be! If you're older than 35, when you were growing up do you remember anyone looking for the letters on the dial.

And in my day, we had real dials on the phone--none this fancy DTMF stuff for us.

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907959)

And in my day, we had real dials on the phone--none this fancy DTMF stuff for us.

Kids! When I grew up, we had a crank on the phone which made a light come on at the switchboard. The operator would then, in a nasal twang, ask us for the number and connect us.

Which isn't too dissimilar to how the internet used to work, but with the hosts table doing the job of the operator. The whole newfangled DNS system was supposed to make things easier, but I'm not too sure whether it's worth it. Perhaps it would be better if end users had to maintain both hosts files and routing tables, and not just blindly follow links.

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907963)

I am 45 and yes The letters were used all the time

Remember Pennsylvania 6 5000 that is an actual phone number.

Growing up my phone number was Olympia 7-#### otherwise known as OL7- #### it wasn't until I was much older that we started using 657-#### so people used the letters on the keypad all the time.

but memory sucks. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907835)

yeah, but which is easier to remember:

52063

or

slashdot.org?

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907909)

I don't know why this was labeled "insightful" - it should be "funny". Get it - IP addresses? We already have numbers. Only, people aren't very good at remembering ipv4 numbers, much less ipv6 numbers. Plus, the words are often descriptive - something people are not likely to throw away either.

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23908045)

You mean everyone should get a UUID/OID [oid-info.com] and use that as a web address? Sounds fine with me. Visit my homepage at 1.3.6.1.4.1.22818.1.4.1

Well... at least then writing SNMP mibs would be much easier, and you could run your webserver directly from ldap!

tm

Re:Wait - I've got a MUCH better idea... (2, Interesting)

CowboyNealOption (1262194) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908117)

Yeah, but then we would never find out who is stronger; will it be the soft drink maker, or the drug dealers who end up with the .coke domain???

What could go wrong? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907719)

Who wants the.internet.is.for.porn -?
How about www.gmail -? "gmail" TLD up for grabs! Anyone?
How about investors.NYSE ?

What could possibly go wrong?

And the first to go? (1)

throatmonster (147275) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907745)

.fuck, .blow and everything else about sex, you know.

OK (1)

Neil Blender (555885) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907747)

Even ICANN is not this stupid. This will not happen.

Better than the current system (1)

ozamosi (615254) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907763)

There are two systems I'd consider good:

1. Every country in the world has one TLD each, and then one or a very limited number of international ones (.com - is there any reason why we even need .net or .org?). Or something similar. People who take a country code TLD and sell domains on it to everyone (.nu, .tv, .tk, etc) would be spanked. Only very few TLD:s that are very general purpose.

2. Everyone can create any TLD they choose. ICANN would be free to make demands in terms of cash, purpose, or whatever - that's fine - but if I wanted a .geek TLD, I could in theory create it.

The current system, however, is that ICANN act like a kind of high priests that have the power to create as general or specific TLD:s they choose (.museum, .mobi, and all that junk), but won't allow anyone else to. This sounds unfair to me.

I instinctively believe that my first ideal system would be better than my second, but since ICANN seem to be moving away from that system, I guess my second ideal system is still better than the current one.

Re:Better than the current system (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23908073)

Originally the domains names assignments were intended as: .org was for non-profit organisations .com was for commercial ventures .edu was for educational institutions .net was for clouds networks (X.25)

And everyone else had country codes (.us, .uk, .fr , .ca ). The UK orginally wanted to have the paths flipped round for some reason ie. uk.co.university.department.staffname), although that has been dropped.

Scotland wants to have their own TLD (.sco), so there might end up being a (.eng) for England - theres a .ie for Ireland, and Wales [namesatwork.com] wants to have a TLD as well.

Having country, regional or geographical based TLD's is probably the best, as you can identify where the spam is coming from.

Worthless (4, Insightful)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907767)

For every new TLD that gets created it just adds that many more TLDs that company has to buy to cover their trademark, company name whatever.

This is just ridiculous.

www.compaq.xyz has zero value. I never even understood why .net was created either. I can understand .ORG, and maybe even .INFO, but not .NET.

This only creates whole new markets for domain squatters. Who gives a crap about .MOBI? I certainly don't. I don't see any major wireless carriers using it on a regular basis. The mobile blackberry website I go to is still a .COM

This is made all the more ridiculous by the fact the most people have a hard time differentiating between TLDs as it is. Even I have problems sometimes and put a .COM when it should be a .NET. The fact that those 2 websites are wholly different entities is just crazy.

This is all about money going into the pockets of some people, and nothing about adding value to the Internet.

There are only two, and will forever be only two, TLDs which have any value associated with them whatsoever.... .COM and .ORG. That's it. Everything else is reserved anyways, and you can substitute a country TLD for .COM and .ORG when appropriate.

For those that would argue that point, ask yourselves honestly.... when you think of a domain name which TLD do you think of putting after it first?

Re:Worthless (4, Informative)

zifferent (656342) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907871)

Uhmm, I use a .NET

I use it to point to my home NETWORK. While I would like to have .COM it was already taken by a COMPANY. Go figure.

Re:Worthless (1)

EdIII (1114411) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908137)

LOL.

Exactly. There is the confusion I am talking about. Your domain is two wholly different entities with respect to .NET and .COM.

Most people will not make the mistake of trying to hit the COMPANY at .COM and hitting your .NET, but how many of your friends, family, etc. are going to make the mistake of trying to hit your NETWORK at .NET but instead hitting the COMPANY at .COM?

The only reason why you got the .NET in the first place is that the COMPANY perceived that it held no real value in the first place.

Re:Worthless (4, Informative)

Varitek (210013) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908035)

I never even understood why .net was created either. I can understand .ORG, and maybe even .INFO, but not .NET
.net was originally for organisations that provided Internet infrastructure (backbones, ISPs, etc).

Re:Worthless (1)

ArieKremen (733795) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908107)

... and since you can buy yourself an education and degrees online, there's no reason for .EDU either.

I think the original TLD system was good, however the implementation stinks. It quickly allows to categorize sites, however oversight was/is lax, creating all the too familiar problems.

Re:Worthless (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908145)

Well to be honest I usually don't think about it at all. I hit ctrl+enter which prefixes www. and suffixes .com

If I get it wrong then never mind, it only took 0.01 seconds.

Zone Defense! (2, Interesting)

supersoundguy (1308579) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907771)

All I'm saying is I would not want to be a DNS admin if this goes through. DNS zones (and DNS queries I might add) would increase exponentially and DNS standard practice would fragment even more.

Spammers, etc. will LOVE this (5, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907785)

This sort of thing would be a godsend for spammers & phishers. It'd make it so much easier for them to forge websites to try to scam people. Just imagine creating a TLD that's something like "comm" instead of "com" or "C0M" (zero instead of oh), etc. It'll create a security nightmare out of what is already a major pain in the @ss.

Top Level Domain (1, Funny)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907799)

Come-on people lets use the full words at least once and not just jump into acranyms. "New for nerds" Not all nerds work on networking at that level. They may know what a Top Level Domain is however they don't work with them in a way where they use the Acranym "TLD". IHASMTBDTISTSHUTA

Oh no. (2, Informative)

PontifexPrimus (576159) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907803)

The openness of the new system could pave the way for a .xxx domain name, after more than half a decade of wrangling between its backers and Icann.
Yeah, and it will surely work now... Look, guys, moving all the "smut" into an isolated corner of the internet will not work because a) nothing is isolated on the internet (if it exists, I can link to it) and b) no one will be able to define "smut" in any meaningful way. Oh, and I smell "think of the children" arguments approaching...

That said - if this is implemented as written I also foresee a rush towards all short words of the English language and a subsequent loss of all mnemonic devices I use to remember websites:
Now: "Hey, I want to go to Amazon. That's amazon.com, right?"
Then: "I want to go to Newbookstore. That's newbookstore.books - no, wait, newbookstore.cheapbooks - or newbookstore.bestbookstore? Newbookstore.isgreat? Newbookstore.all? Newbookstore.shopping? Newbookstore.AAA?"
Granted, the current TLD system kinda sucks, but opening up all kinds of words as possible TLDs will certainly bring no improvement (one thing I like to do when I browse for a product's availability here in Germany is enter the search term into google with the added restriction "site:.de". When German online presences will end in dozens if not hundreds of different words this easy way to identify them will be lost...).

Who cares about DNS anymore? (1)

Peaker (72084) | more than 6 years ago | (#23907821)

Does anyone really look strings up in DNS? People look up strings in Google, "Awesome bar" and Quicksilver.

spam.spam.spam.bakedbeans.and.spam (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907883)

They're nuts. Let there be a *bit* of contention for the limited number of TLDs so that finding the relevant domain is more likely rather than the thousands of squatted variations, and so that a company or person has a decent chance of affording the limited number of variations that are possible to derive from their name.

There's plenty of domain-space "land" out there if so much of it wasn't bought up and occupied so cheaply by so many speculators. Put those guys out of business by enacting some effective rules and prices that will discourage squatting and front running, and the relatively limited current namespace problem will solve itself. Otherwise it's going to be the biggest namespace grab in internet history, to nobody's benefit but perhaps the registrars.

Why do we need TLDs again? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23907967)

Why don't we ditch TLDs entirely and say that a valid domain is a string of alphanumeric characters that are seperated internally by dots/underscores/dashes/etc and delimited by //

Us Indians will be happy (1)

dada21 (163177) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908031)

We've been clamoring for .head for a long time. AdamDada.head will show everyone that my family's origin is India.

Usenet-Like naming system (2, Insightful)

droopycom (470921) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908099)

Anybody thought about using a co-opted naming system such as used for Newsgroups ?

Think about it....

How it might work... (2, Interesting)

lymond01 (314120) | more than 6 years ago | (#23908121)

I wouldn't be surprised if ICANN made the rule that your 2nd level name aliases the TLD. So Disney.com would also own *.disney.

TLDs would no longer be categories, they'd just be the site name. http://ilovecats http://cnn http://teslamotors

Makes sense to me.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?