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!

ICANN Board Approves Wide Expansion of TLDs

timothy posted more than 6 years ago | from the dibs-on-dot-tim dept.

The Internet 490

penciling_in writes "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved the relaxation of the rules for the introduction of new Top-Level Domains — a move that could drastically change the Internet. 'We are opening up a new world and I think this cannot be underestimated,' said Roberto Gaetano, an ICANN board member. The future outcome of this decision was discussed on Slashdot a few days ago. It also seems, based on this post on CircleID from last month, that ICANN was already in preparation mode of mass TLD introductions. The new decision will allow companies to register their brands as generic top-level domain names (TLDs). For instance, Microsoft could apply to have a TLD such as '.msn', Apple apply for '.mac', and Google for '.goog'... The decision was taken unanimously on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at the 32nd ICANN Meeting in Paris."

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

There will be some good from this. (5, Funny)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953005)

We are long overdue for a .sucks domain. It will be nice to finally have it.

Re:There will be some good from this. (5, Funny)

lastchance_000 (847415) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953053)

You'll have to talk to Hoover to register domains under it, though.

WHAT'S WRONG, LITTLE POOKIE? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953153)

Is your 401(k) account dwindled to zero because you took a 100% position in VA Linux Software back in 1999?

http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=LNUX#chart2:symbol=lnux;range=my;indicator=volume;charttype=line;crosshair=on;ohlcvalues=0;logscale=off;source=undefined

Re:There will be some good from this. (5, Insightful)

ShieldW0lf (601553) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953211)

Talk about printing your own money.

This is like paying the city to give your driveway a name, so you can brag about what a blue blood you are for having your own street.

Re:There will be some good from this. (1)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 6 years ago | (#23954035)

This is like paying the city to give your driveway a name, so you can brag about what a blue blood you are for having your own street.
Not really. In many cases, streets are named after the first landowner to live there; I know some people who had "their" street named after them.

We once had a country house on the street named after the neighbour who was my father's best friend (he got the idea to subdivide the lot he bought).

Re:There will be some good from this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953271)

I'm the first in the queue to claim the domain sex.sucks :-)

Re:There will be some good from this. (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | more than 6 years ago | (#23954001)

I was _1 week_ late to register sucks.org -- I would've loved to have been able to give people subdomains off of it ... although, technically, it'd be a network service, so sucks.net would've been more appropriate (but that was taken the year before).

I've never actually contacted any of the sucks.{com|net|org} owners to see if they'd be willing to give people A records. (.net and .org keep going year-to-year and renewing each time ... .com's longer term)

Re:There will be some good from this. (3, Funny)

diodeus (96408) | more than 6 years ago | (#23954033)

I want .:)

first.post (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953013)

fuck.icann

Re:first.post (4, Funny)

dotancohen (1015143) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953741)

icann.not

Re:first.post (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953869)

like a true yoda disciple, spoken.

The end of ctrl+enter days? (5, Insightful)

pwnies (1034518) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953019)

I sincerely hope that this doesn't become too commonplace, and that .com, .net, and .org don't just get thrown out the window. Call me lazy, but I love being able to ctrl+enter, shift+enter, and ctrl+shift+enter to auto-complete .com/.net/.org respectively. Typing "www.search.google" is just more tedious than typing, "google [ctrl][enter]"

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953083)

I just type "g <search term>[enter]". Get your browser set up properly.

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (2)

George Beech (870844) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953625)

pffft that is 1 too many key strokes, I just do <search term>[enter] ! efficiency (and search bars) rules!

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953627)

I use that search box in top right and don't even have to worry about typing "g"

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (3, Funny)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953143)

Ya. And this'll just piss off your wife (yes I know I'm on Slashdot) when she types in goo.. and up pops www.google.boobs

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (4, Insightful)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953189)

Take a lesson from the idiots. Many times I have seen /.r's mocking end users for using the search feature on their homepage to get to another website, instead of using the address bar. I don't find that feature idiotic at all, and I use that behavior myself. The more and more TLDs we get, the more convenient this "feature" of a modern homepage becomes. And don't moan about have to use the mouse to click the first entry, most users would have had to use the mouse to even put the cursor in the address bar anyways, not to mention click the mouse a predetermined number of times between 1 and 3 just to be able to start tying a random URL.

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (1)

maxume (22995) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953601)

What about those of us who deride them for not using the search bar?

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (1)

The Warlock (701535) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953937)

Check out the new address bar in Firefox 3: you can just type words into it and it will search your history based on the site's title, sorted by frequency of access, and bring up those results, instead of just a list of URLs.

I thought it was pretty neat, anyway.

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953743)

Firefox 3's location bar makes this trivial. Just type "google [down] [enter]" and if you're already a frequent Google user, it should be the first entry.

Manually entering URLs is becoming obsolete anyway. Either tools like FF3's amazing bar, or just Google'ing for the page are the best.

In Japan, ads don't even show URLs anymore - just a search query.

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (5, Insightful)

BungaDunga (801391) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953793)

Couldn't there be www.google? ie, domain "www" TLD "google".

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953927)

Very good point, you have my unofficial mod up.

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (3, Insightful)

alphaseven (540122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953849)

I sincerely hope that this doesn't become too commonplace, and that .com, .net, and .org don't just get thrown out the window. Call me lazy, but I love being able to ctrl+enter, shift+enter, and ctrl+shift+enter to auto-complete .com/.net/.org respectively. Typing "www.search.google" is just more tedious than typing, "google [ctrl][enter]"
There are already quite a few popular sites that use "unusual" TLDs like last.fm, del.icio.us and blip.tv and it never struck me as a problem.

Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (1)

Palshife (60519) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953999)

If there's a Google TLD, wouldn't you just type "google"?

fristy poss (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953025)

About GNAA:
GNAA (GRAMMAR NAZI ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the first organization which gathers GRAMMAR NAZIS from all over America and abroad for one common goal - being GRAMMAR NAZIS.

Are you GRAMMAR?
Are you a NAZI?
Are you a GRAMMAR NAZI?

If you answered "Yes" to all of the above questions, then GNAA (GRAMMAR NAZI ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) might be exactly what you've been looking for!
Join GNAA (GRAMMAR NAZI ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) today, and enjoy all the benefits of being a full-time GNAA member.
GNAA (GRAMMAR NAZI ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA) is the fastest-growing GRAMMAR NAZI community with THOUSANDS of members all over United States of America and the World! You, too, can be a part of GNAA if you join today!

Why not? It's quick and easy - only 3 simple steps!

        * First, you have to obtain a copy of GRAMMARNAZIS FROM OUTER SPACE THE MOVIE and watch it. You can download the movie (~130mb) using BitTorrent.
        * Second, you need to succeed in posting a GNAA First Post on slashdot.org, a popular "news for trolls" website.
        * Third, you need to join the official GNAA irc channel #GNAA on irc.gnaa.us, and apply for membership.

Talk to one of the ops or any of the other members in the channel to sign up today! Upon submitting your application, you will be required to submit links to your successful First Post, and you will be tested on your knowledge of GRAMMARNAZIS FROM OUTER SPACE.

If you are having trouble locating #GNAA, the official GRAMMAR NAZI ASSOCIATION OF AMERICA irc channel, you might be on a wrong irc network. The correct network is NiggerNET, and you can connect to irc.gnaa.us as our official server.

If you have mod points and would like to support GNAA, please moderate this post up.

Copyright (c) 2003-2006 Grammar Nazi Association of America

Interesting reversal (4, Interesting)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953057)

It wasn't that long ago that ICANN voted against allowing the much-requested .xxx domain. Now they want to open up to allow custom TLDs?

As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary hodge-podge already.

Re:Interesting reversal (1)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953281)

Though the idea was to try to force all x-rated material to be on a .xxx wasn't it? Which would have been impractical for myriad reasons.

Re:Interesting reversal (5, Informative)

jandrese (485) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953367)

No, it was just the creation of a .xxx domain, there was never any realistic talk about forcing all pornographic material on there (defining what is pornographic for the entire world would be impossible anyway). It was going to be completely self selected. The reason they didn't want to make it is because they didn't want to create a "red light" district on the internet, an idea I still find baffling given the current nature of the internet.

Re:Interesting reversal (2, Interesting)

Zeinfeld (263942) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953297)

The difference is that the supporters of .xxx could only get what they wanted if the rest of the net became a porn-free zone. So it was about censorship and control.

What I don't understand is why the author thought that Microsoft would want .msn and Google would want .goog. Microsoft and Google might take those domains to stop squatters but the brands they would want to promote are .microsoft and .google.

I wonder what the governance model for the root zones is going to be. At the moment these are maintained on a pro-bono basis. But this proposal is going to seriously increase the number of domains and the cost of the infrastructure required.

This is stupid - here is the solution:* (5, Interesting)

I Want to be Anonymo (1312257) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953909)

A meeting of the minds between Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft resulting in an agreement to not index these idiotic domains could kill this quick before it gets out of hand.

*Will it happen - doubtful.
  Can you or I do anything about it - probably not.
  But I can dream.

No one said they were any smarter. (1)

khasim (1285) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953303)

I kind of supported their decision NOT to issue a .xxx TLD. But mostly because I believe it SHOULD be issued at the country name level.

Example:
sitename.xxx.uk
or
sitename.xxx.seattle.wa.us

Now they've gone in the opposite direction, but they're still as stupid as they were back when they made that first decision.

Re:No one said they were any smarter. (2, Funny)

zehaeva (1136559) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953593)

mmmm pr0n in seattle, will this be a guarantee that these hot girls from my area _really_ are from my area ?? ^_^

Re:Interesting reversal (5, Funny)

pitchpipe (708843) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953335)

I say make 'em type in the ip address. That'll get rid of that hodge-podge lickety split. Now get off my lawn!

"As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary" (3, Insightful)

Animaether (411575) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953713)

"As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary hodge-podge already."

It does - just look at Slashdot. It's hardly an 'organization' (.org), especially now that it's owned by a commercial entity (.com). Heck, it started out as somebody's personal little site.. happened to be an american (.us).

Tons more examples of current sites being on domains that they 'shouldn`t' be in, and also a lot of examples of where that is the case simply because sites change over time.

So if all of it is pretty much arbitrary anyway, then why not do away with it?

Heck, some people already have... *entirely*

For example: http://bi/ [bi]
( disregard any re-direction by browser to www.bi.com ; open a shell, go ping 'bi'. If you're on windows, go ping 'bi.' or it will look for a local host)

I understand the many technical, psychological, financial, etc. reasons against this. But in terms of organization - we don't have any anyway.

Slashdot can finally be what it wants (5, Funny)

aster_ken (516808) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953089)

http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot]

Woohoo!

Re:Slashdot can finally be what it wants (3, Insightful)

mlwmohawk (801821) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953121)

http://slash.dot [slash.dot] ?

Re:Slashdot can finally be what it wants (1)

IdeaMan (216340) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953871)

http://slash./ [slash.]

Will they allow a blank TLD?

Re:Slashdot can finally be what it wants (5, Funny)

Eudial (590661) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953237)

http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot]

Woohoo!

H t t p colon slash slash slash dot dot dot...?

Hm. You could develop this into some sort of morse code.

So, since geek.com is already registered, we can register --. . . -.-, or

http://dotdotdotslash.slash/ [dotdotdotslash.slash]

Followed by

2. ???

And

3. Profit!

Re:Slashdot can finally be what it wants (1, Redundant)

digitally404 (990191) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953245)

I think http://slash.dot/ [slash.dot] would be better

Re:Slashdot can finally be what it wants (4, Insightful)

masterzora (871343) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953475)

But http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot] leads to an equal number of slashes and dots (not to mention maximizing the number of slashes and dots with out making the URL tedious). Surely this is a good thing?

Slashdotted already? (3, Funny)

Scorchio (177053) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953813)

I keep trying, but I can't get to this site. :(

Those're gonna be some fun router tables (4, Funny)

wiredog (43288) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953095)

I, personally, intend to try for the ".nsfw" domain.

Re:Those're gonna be some fun router tables (4, Insightful)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953973)

I don't know about you, but none of my router tables have DNS names in them.

So wait.... (5, Insightful)

porcupine8 (816071) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953129)

Let's say Apple registers .apple or .ipod. Do they automatically get ALL of the possible domains within that TLD? If not, who controls the TLD? If .apple is a TLD, can I go to GoDaddy and register porcupine.apple? If they do control it, do they have to pay to register domains within their own TLD? Or does this deal come with free unlimited domains?

Re:So wait.... (0)

Aighearach (97333) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953231)

Yes

Re:So wait.... (4, Informative)

Gewalt (1200451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953243)

If they register the TLD then they will become the registrar. If you want to get a domain on that TLD then you will have to go through them.

Re:So wait.... (5, Informative)

gclef (96311) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953659)

Close. They will become the registRY. The registRAR must be one of the ICANN-approved ones (you can't require a non-ICANN registrar). It isn't clear from what I've read whether you can refuse to work with any registrar and make it a closed TLD. I would assume you can, though.

Re:So wait.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953401)

.com and .net are run by VeriSign, but you can register the domain through any registrar of course. And while these companies may own their TLDs and have legal rights over them, I'm sure all or nearly all will get contracts with VeriSign or some other company to actually manage it for them. It would be stupid not to.

This is going to suck (1)

Osurak (1013927) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953207)

I don't look forward to having to type out stuff like www.somerandomcompany.randomlygenereatedtldthatwas pickedbysomemarkettingassholewhoexhibits callousdisregardforconvenienceandacompletelackofcommonsense

Re:This is going to suck (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953441)

Then don't. Vote with your fingers and ummm... go somewhere else.

Clownpenis.fart (4, Funny)

the_tsi (19767) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953241)

No longer the last domain available.

Abuse of TLDs (4, Interesting)

JoeCommodore (567479) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953247)

I hope they have good oversight...

Imagine the chaos of tlds with: .exe .dll .prg .php .c0m (or other foreign symbol for o .txt .pdf .conf .doc .txt .xls .ppt .jpg .gif .tif .mp3 .mpg .htm(l) .png ...then again slashdot could have a slashdot.slashdot domain.

Re:Abuse of TLDs (2, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953485)

I've seen this sort of comment in other places as well. It is a very important one.

I remember when I was younger and stupid that I thought that .com on websites was the same as .com at the end of some MS DOS programs. Actually I never was stupid enough to think that they meant the same thing, but the fact is that I was damn confused until I learnt that one meant commercial and the other command.

So yeah, this is a stupid idea, and I predict many many further opportunities for nasty people to exploit this to take money of stupid and ignorant people.

Not to mention it will confuse the heck out of lots of people.

Re:Abuse of TLDs (5, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953819)

persontal i want to try and get .local

just so i can fuck with all the small biz NT/AD domain installs out there that doen't use a fully qualified name

as soon as .local is resolvable soooo many people are going to have a bad day

Why not just languages? (5, Interesting)

fintler (140604) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953251)

I'd be happy with a TLD system based on language. Why do we need the com/net/org thing anyway. Lets just have something like

http://google.en/ [google.en]
http://google.it/ [google.it]
http://.name.language/ [.name.language]

Re:Why not just languages? (5, Funny)

tppublic (899574) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953597)

"Lets just have something like http://google.en/ [google.en] "

I think you mean: http://google.en_us/ [google.enus]

Re:Why not just languages? (3, Funny)

koinu (472851) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953599)

Question from .de ...

Don't we have such system already? Does that mean you are not communists?

Re:Why not just languages? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953621)

How would people get to google.010000110100111101001101

Re:Why not just languages? (1)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953835)

HTTP already has a way to handle languages: the Accept-Language header [w3.org] (section 14.4 of that link). Country TLDs make sense because a website may be associated with a specific country, but unless .en is for websites about English, it does not make any sense.

Re:Why not just languages? (3, Informative)

Cyberax (705495) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953939)

Uhm... I'm automatically redirected to google.com.ua the first time I visit Google. And it's in Ukrainian (or in Russian - it depends on your browser settings). And that's because I'm in Ukraine.

So it's working already.

Woohoo (4, Funny)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953275)

A flat DNS. Just the way it was always meant to be.

 

Re:Woohoo (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953749)

Yeah, lets setup a server to server copy mechanism to transfer the "DNS" file with all the domain names in to keep everybody up to date.

It's almost ironic that it went from a flat hosts file being copied around, only to head back that way.

alternatives to icann (1)

kc8tbe (772879) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953293)

They've really fucked the system with this one. Are there any alternatives to icann administered dns out there?

Possibly the stupidest idea ever (4, Insightful)

lusiphur69 (455824) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953337)

Hmmm..let's open up the TLD's so that DNS servers will become overcrowded with useless DNS information that will quickly go out of date and throw the usability and simplicity of the current schema right out the window.

Additionally, of course, common folk will have more trouble getting a domain name for that personal website/application because the fees are going to increase exponetially.

Cash-in for ICANN - and end users lose.

Re:Possibly the stupidest idea ever (1)

timster (32400) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953535)

The usability and simplicity of a schema which means nothing? Because that's what we have now. Commercial sites with .org are all over the place, like right here. Non-profit sites with .com are everywhere. Nobody knows what .net is even supposed to mean. .edu is probably the last remaining holdout of sanity.

This is about money. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953405)

70 million new TLDs means 70 million new registrations. The domain wars all over again. Fight for www.genericword -- That means a lot of money.

The lawyers should do nicely too.

Re:This is about money. (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953781)

Shhhh don't tell people the truth.

God help us (4, Insightful)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953417)

This will only cause more confusion, especially to the average person.

But they get more $ out of the extra registrations, so we know why it *really* happened.

So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (5, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953419)

...then ICANN has .chzbrgr?

I'm sorry, I'll show myself out now.

Re:So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953481)

Why not just spell it out? Or how about .mcdonalds ?

Re:So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (3, Funny)

Floritard (1058660) | more than 6 years ago | (#23954037)

Whooooooooosh!

Re:So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953505)

Stop posting. Alternately, die in a fire of AIDS.

Re:So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (1)

KGIII (973947) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953519)

(Redundant post alert)

That, my good man, has just made my day. I'm procrastinating, I have to leave, but now I'm glad I am because I am now able to leave with a giant smile on my face. That was a beautiful thing you just did.

Re:So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (1)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953727)

You sir, are in the same situation as me. I was about to leave and saw that post. Put a smile on my face.

more cyber-squatting? (1, Insightful)

pak9rabid (1011935) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953421)

I what impact this will have on cyber-squatting.

Re:more cyber-squatting? (5, Informative)

digitally404 (990191) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953757)

For now it shant be a problem especially if the new names are expected to cost over $100,000 [www.cbc.ca] .

I can think of many companies (4, Funny)

LM741N (258038) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953435)

that should be restricted to the .con domain.

Re:I can think of many companies (5, Funny)

legoman666 (1098377) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953753)

.kaaahhhnnnnn ?

Oh no... (4, Informative)

drspliff (652992) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953469)

From a technical point of view I see this as a failure. It's putting more weight on on the root name servers, how long until there are 10,000 TLDs, 100,000 of them? a million? Then there's all the people running the TLDs who may or may not have the infrastructure, technical expertise or long-term stability to properly run one.

"free market" != stable, there will be thousands of different ways to register sub-domains, some where registrations will not be allowed, some which cost excessive amounts of money and eventually whole TLDs setup to Google-bomb.

Sure it means people will be able to type in "apple", but what gives one specific company the right over a global use of that trademark name? What about "apple" print design services, "apple" car mechanics all of whom have their own trademarks in that industry.

I'm just an idealist, and would much prefer ".uk.org.mycompany.www" style domains (remember, thats how it was supposed to work in the beginning but somebody fucked up), but all I can see happening from opening up TLDs is annoyance and instability.

I'm not even going to comment on ICANN doing this for the money, capitalist pigs.

Re:Oh no... (3, Interesting)

AnyoneEB (574727) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953975)

This article [templetons.com] , which I believe I found off a comment from the previous /. article on this topic, discusses a sane way to handle a TLD free-for-all, which actually sounds like it could be better than the current system. Of course, ICANN will likely opt for the profitable way not the sane way if the general consensus on /. about ICANN's greed is at all accurate.

Yeah, domains in the other order like on usenet would make more sense, but it is quite a few years too late for that.

A stupid move (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953489)

I'm going to drop any TLD that isn't on the current (as of now) TLD list and I encourage other people operating DNS servers to do the same.

I just can't wait (1)

digitally404 (990191) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953493)

I really, really, hope I can get http://www.ocd.www/ [ocd.www]

Re:I just can't wait (4, Funny)

jmac1492 (1036880) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953783)

I want http://www.com.dyslexia/ [www.com.dyslexia]

So what! (2, Insightful)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953495)

I have .com's .net's and two different country's domains. I have no interest to waste more money on domains just because they changed the end suffix. It will all end up as a fiasco for popular suffix's like .tv (overpriced). No doubt .sex will still not be allowed. Will ICANN allow every registrar to register any .suffix or will that be restricted as well?

I like the idea, frankly (4, Funny)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953537)

I don't care if it makes the Internet work like AOL keywords. I don't care if Google, Yahoo!, et al. have to spider inf() more TLDs. I don't care if idiot corporations think they have to buy every version of .m1kr0s0ft and .msf7 out there "just in case". If we can finally get .fuck and .suck, .lol and .is.gay the Internet will finally release its full scientific potential.

More porn.
-l

P.s., Karl Auerbach did experiments showing even BIND could handle umpteen million TLDs.

well (1)

syrinx (106469) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953579)

On one hand, this makes DNS entirely useless. On the other hand, I (and I think many other people) basically just use Google as a replacement for DNS anyway, so maybe it doesn't matter.

Ohhhh shit... (1)

ettlz (639203) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953603)

I can see it now. http: //hello.jpg/. Bad, bad, bad.

in many ways, this is good (5, Interesting)

eobanb (823187) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953669)

If you read TFA you'll see that the TLDs will cost upwards of $100,000 and are subject to ICANN approval. That cost and/or approval might be a one time thing, or it might turn out to be annual. Yes, there will be a few idiotic TLDs, but this is probably how it should've been from the beginning. I work for a university IT department and we regularly get calls from users trying to access university sites (most of which use the .edu TLD of course), except that they are trying to use .com instead. Some universities have registered .com domains to redirect to the real site to try and accommodate these people. Our department refuses to do this, and I'm glad. Many people still have the mindset that website == ends in .com and it reinforces that notion. Arbitrary TLDs will slowly change the mindset from thinking that a URL is anything.usually-com to anything.anything. This is probably how DNS should have been from the beginning.

Re:in many ways, this is good (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953925)

"This is probably how DNS should have been from the beginning."
umm, no.
DNS exists to make thing easier, and not flat.

By your logic, you should just have peopel enter the hexadecimal of your IP address. It's what it really is.

Your department is run by dicks who can't be bother to understand why things are the way they are.

.local (1)

screevo (701820) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953773)

I call .local. Think of how many small company domains that will screw with.

.dumb (1)

zakkie (170306) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953779)

that is .all

Great idea. Terrible implementation. (3, Insightful)

ivan256 (17499) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953857)

Instead of letting people own/register a TLD, they should have just let people register domains in *any* TLD.

Hello www.m.i.c.r.o.s.o.f.t, www.m.i.c.r.o.s.o.ft, (2, Insightful)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953863)

Frankly, I fail to see how this is an improvement, as opposed to (say) yanking Network Solutions' monopoly...

Back to the future (4, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953875)

And so it comes full circle. The ancient flat hosts file that the ARPAnet used way back in it's early days, the one that was abandoned in favor of hierarchical DNS because it wasn't possible to manage a flat namespace when the net was a few thousand machines, returns. What, you think the companies that insist on registering every variation of their name in every domain in existence won't insist on having their own TLD too? And we'll be back to hostnames being of the form "ford". And "fordfocus". And "focus". And "myfocus". And "myford". All belonging to Ford Motors. And the inevitable fights when Focus Magazine (a fine-art photography magazine) also wants "focus" and has the trademark to justify getting it just as much as Ford.

Siiiiiigh...

Give me . corn (1)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953907)

I could see scammers with good old names like paypal.corm, paypal.con, paypal.GOM, paypal.C0M, paypal.CQM, paypal.COH... All these neet tricks to make people think they are going to a spot where if their eyes were anybit blurry would miss.

So now we can have eg .jpg (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 6 years ago | (#23953929)

This is a really bad idea. The idea that a URL can end with a dot and a short suffix that's not one of a small, rarely changing, set means that you can't easily tell the difference between a URL and a file. What happens if someone registers '.jpg' or '.html'?

The possibilities for frauds and phishing and god-alone-only-knows-what-else has just increased exponentially.

Can I haz www.www.www (1)

kindbud (90044) | more than 6 years ago | (#23953965)

www.yahoodotcom
com.yahoo.wwwslashslashcolonhttp
in-addr.arpa.168.192
java.lang.Throwable
slash.dotorg

This could be bad (1)

Adrian Lopez (2615) | more than 6 years ago | (#23954011)

Although I like the idea of allowing arbitrary TLDs, I think allowing companies to own entire TLDs is, for the most part, a bad idea. The last thing I want to see is for new generic domains to become the foundation for a new model of unregulated registries (where the first to register a TLD gets full rights over its subdomains).

Also... the article brings up the issue of name censorship: "Susan Crawford, another board member, expressed concern about the provisions for rejecting domain names as a result of governments, on grounds of public order and morality, or Internet users, on the grounds that they were offended. She asked the board to limit such provisions as much as possible." Where can I find more information about these provisions? Do they apply to TLDs, or will all domain registrations be subject to censorship?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?