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 Releases Draft For New TLDs

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the dot-whatever dept.

The Internet 168

NdJ writes "Looks like a whole new domain name battle ground is about to open up. ICANN have just made available their How to Apply for a New Generic Top-Level Domain Draft Applicant Guidebook. It won't be cheap for the individual, but certainly achievable for many domain-name-pimps. 'The Evaluation Fee is designed to make the new gTLD program self-funding only. This was a recommendation of the Generic names Supporting Organization. A detailed costing methodology — including historical program development costs, and predictable and uncertain costs associated with processing new gTLD applications through to delegation in the root zone — estimates a per applicant fee of $US185,000. This is the estimated cost per evaluation in the first application round.'"

cancel ×

168 comments

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

Coward (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500251)

First post. Woot!

13 mil for a tld? (3, Funny)

nobodylocalhost (1343981) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500311)

obvious get rich quick scheme is obvious.

Re:13 mil for a tld? (0)

commodoresloat (172735) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501237)

1. Pay $13 million
2. ???
3. Get Rich!

Where Step 2 is "if you can afford 13 million for a TLD, you're already rich, asshole!"

Re:13 mil for a tld? (4, Insightful)

HappySmileMan (1088123) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501263)

Yes, but really, do we even need TLDs at all anymore, if they're going to allow anyone with enough cash to register a TLD, why not just do away with them altogether.

http://slashdot/ [slashdot]
http://google/ [google]
http://microsoft/ [microsoft]
etc.

Realistically this would be better than having them register "http://*.google/", "http://*.microsoft/", etc. and would basically achieve the same purpose, TLDs were originally made to keep things organised, clearly they no longer want that.

Of course this would probably cause problems if you have "foo.com" and "foo.org" fighting over "foo"

Re:13 mil for a tld? (4, Funny)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501461)

On the other hand it would allow for "foo.fighters"

Re:13 mil for a tld? (2, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501665)

Christian, uh, forgot his last name, the guy in the BOFH and Usenet II discussions, set .DOT up in 94. It still works. You just can't see it. But that's your choice how you configure what servers you believe to tell you what tlds exist.

http://slash.dot/ [slash.dot] has worked just about forever. I've always found it amusing slashdotters never noticed, even when other poeople did.

Why now? (5, Insightful)

QJimbo (779370) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500315)

I always assumed the reason behind .org, .net, .com and country TLDs was to keep things organized and consistent. Why have they decided to do what appears to me as simply going back on themselves?

Re:Why now? (5, Insightful)

denis-The-menace (471988) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500375)

Greed

Re:Why now? (1)

RaceCarDriver (856347) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501059)

Greed

+1 to that

Re:Why now? (5, Insightful)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500423)

Because consistency has long since evaporated. There are plenty of commercial sites running a .org and the .net tld is nowadays meaningless (unless the meaning is "I couldn't afford a .com"). Also, think of all the organisations that use another country's tld, rather than their own. (.tv anyone?)

Re:Why now? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501581)

.com.tw pisses me off so much.

Re:Why now? (4, Interesting)

topham (32406) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500481)

Because ICANN is being driven by a profit motive. I'm sure that a number of people involved have pet-projects, grants, etc that ICANN pays out and which they profit by.

DNS is going to Fragment within a few years, all that has to happen is countries dictate that their custom DNS root services be referenced first. As soon as that happens ICANN will cease to have purpose. If I were China (as an example) this is exactly what I would do to implement proper Chinese DNS resolution.

Re:Why now? (1)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500733)

Because ICANN is being driven by a profit motive. I'm sure that a number of people involved have pet-projects, grants, etc that ICANN pays out and which they profit by.

So true, infact the sheer amount of documents and bureaucracy presents enough evidence. Compare this to OSS projects.

Re:Why now? (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500491)

Cash rules everything around me. CREAM Get the money, dollar dollar bill y'all.

They just want money, and to hell with the consequences. It's not going to be pretty when any scammer can get their hands on www.citibank.con or www.citibank.corn

Re:Why now? (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500593)

I fully support this new .con TLD initiative for scammers and thieves.

Re:Why now? (1)

thedrx (1139811) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500497)

get back to work, you lazy bum. a lazy bum with a .bo domain, but still a lazy bum.

Re:Why now? (3, Funny)

Instine (963303) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500677)

Because they CANN. Apparently.

Re:Why now? (2, Insightful)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500849)

Golly. If only somebody could do it for under thirteen million. *cough* *choke*

Let me be the first to call bullshit. While there's no question vetting a new tld is a bit of work you have to keep in mind the number of alternative tlds grew from 0 to over one thousand, ten years ago, and nobody spent a dime. They just put their servers where their mouths were and just did it.

The cool thing about this issue popping up 10 years later (dormant that long because icann went and chased trademark issues for a decade just to find out, as we pointed out, "existing laws work") is that no matter what point you're thinking of, it's been brought up already and settled either on paper or in practice.

Re:Why now? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500977)

I always assumed the reason behind .org, .net, .com and country TLDs was to keep things organized and consistent. Why have they decided to do what appears to me as simply going back on themselves?

4. Profit!!!

Re:Why now? (2, Insightful)

Bog Standard (743863) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501085)

I always assumed the reason behind .org, .net, .com and country TLDs was to keep things organized and consistent. Why have they decided to do what appears to me as simply going back on themselves?

I always assumed the reason behind .org, .net, .com and country TLDs was to keep things organized and consistent. Why have they decided to do what appears to me as simply going back on themselves?

it looks like they could not resist the cash call of going from a tidy, organised vertical hierarchy to a flat, horizontal fuck-up of a system, devolving control and allowing any old pleb to set up a tld at the right price. So where does this stop? 10 tld, 100ltd. TLD for ALL !!!1

Might as well... (3, Insightful)

glindsey (73730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500417)

The .com, .net, and .org domains have meant absolutely jack-squat for years now. May as well open up the field.

Of course, this means a company like McDonalds will now be forced to register "mcdonalds.[every possible alphanumeric string]" -- this ought to be interesting.

Re:Might as well... (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500585)

Agreed I think that we should more or less abandon TLD with the exception of the country codes so people can specify a certain localization.

Re:Might as well... (3, Funny)

FailedTheTuringTest (937776) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500591)

a company like McDonalds will now be forced to register "mcdonalds.[every possible alphanumeric string]"

I suspect this will actually force them to register "*.mcdonalds" as a TLD. And likewise with other big companies.

Re:Might as well... (1)

glindsey (73730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500659)

Yeah, I was being sarcastic -- I actually made that very point below. Big companies will get vanity TLDs. Smaller companies (not to mention open-source organizations) will be stuck with .com/.net/.org.

Re:Might as well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500743)

I'm .LOVINIT

Re:Might as well... (4, Insightful)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501099)

a company like McDonalds will now be forced to register "mcdonalds.[every possible alphanumeric string]"

I suspect this will actually force them to register "*.mcdonalds" as a TLD. And likewise with other big companies.

Actually, the parent poster had a better point. What's to stop someone from registering "McDonalds.Hamburger", "McDonalds.Fries", or "McDonalds.restaurant", other than the cost.

A lot of generic domain keywords are often used to usurp specific names. It should would be confusing if you Googled "McDonalds" and you got the above domains along with "[whatever].McDonalds". Likely having to lead to major companies having to drop a lot on custom TLDs or fighting people infringing their trademark and diluting their brand.

As cool as the idea is, being a web dev. myself, I just see this becoming an even more chaotic mess than before. How much will the ".sex" TLD go for? What's a person going to do with a ".restaurant" or ".france" domain?

One thing is for certain... Google and all other search engines will have a heck of a time trying to devise new algorithms to return relevancy, especially if someone registered a ".restaurant" TLD and then uses it as a "restaurant networking site" (like a social networking site) and charges memberships to create "McDonalds.restaurant" or whatever?

Uph! Lots of work for the Search Engine folks, let alone new ways for SEO wizards to try and abuse and game the competition. And in the end, the internet "surfers" will be worse off unless some sort of standard comes about to keep it organized. But, perhaps not. It certainly doesn't look good on paper, to me.

Re:Might as well... (1)

Firehed (942385) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501173)

Actually, the parent poster had a better point. What's to stop someone from registering "McDonalds.Hamburger", "McDonalds.Fries", or "McDonalds.restaurant", other than the cost.

The fact that they'll be sued into oblivion for trademark infringement?

Re:Might as well... (4, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501643)

I'm currently in the process of getting loans to register ".sucks", and ".lol".

I'll sell domains and make tons of money.

Re:Might as well... (2, Interesting)

entgod (998805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500625)

Or they could just use "mcdonalds"

Re:Might as well... (5, Funny)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500639)

Of course, this means a company like McDonalds will now be forced to register "mcdonalds.[every possible alphanumeric string]" -- this ought to be interesting.

Does this mean ICANN has cheezburger?

Re:Might as well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25501079)

This is the greatest thing I've seen on the internet for weeks!

Well played Sir (or Madam).

Kevin

Re:Might as well... (1)

swaq (989895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501285)

So did you come up with that on your own or did you read it here first? http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=596435&cid=23953419 [slashdot.org]

I decided to reply instead of mod you redundant in case it was the latter.

Re:Might as well... (1)

swaq (989895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501301)

Er, "wasn't the latter".

Re:Might as well... (1)

Dogtanian (588974) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501383)

So did you come up with that on your own or did you read it here first? http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=596435&cid=23953419 [slashdot.org]

Actually, I thought up that one on my own a while back (can't remember why), and out of curiosity did a search to see if anyone else had already thought up the idea- turned out they had.

But I think the fact that I came up with it independently entitles me to use it at least once :)

Re:Might as well... (1)

I'm not really here (1304615) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501377)

Or they could simply do the work to get a McDonalds TLD, and then the only official McDonalds sites are blah.blah.blah.McDonalds So they could have Toys.McDonalds, Menus.McDonalds, and they could have their homepage actually be McDonalds (without any subdomain)

So who is going to register... (4, Funny)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500419)

...".spam"?

Re:So who is going to register... (1)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500561)

If you take it, I'll buy bakedbeansand.spam ...

Re:So who is going to register... (2, Funny)

bky1701 (979071) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500835)

I'll take eggsbaconsausage.spam.

Re:So who is going to register... (5, Funny)

a whoabot (706122) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501687)

I'll just end this here and take LobsterThermidorACrevetteWithAMornaySauceServedInAProvencaleManner-
WithShallotsAndAuberginesGarnishedWithTrufflePateBrandyAndWithAFriedEggOnTopAnd.spam

Re:So who is going to register... (1)

Wiarumas (919682) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500657)

Or better yet, .nospam

Re:So who is going to register... (3, Funny)

rugatero (1292060) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500731)

Well, there's .spameggsausageandspam.
That's not got much spam in it.

Re:So who is going to register... (1)

Rayeth (1335201) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500841)

what about the .spamspamspameggsandspam?

Re:So who is going to register... (3, Funny)

MrMr (219533) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501439)

What worries me most that I read all of these noiselessly but still in a high pitched voice...

Re:So who is going to register... (1)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501503)

But I don't like spam!

Re:So who is going to register... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500999)

...".spam"?

Hormel

Re:So who is going to register... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25501235)

GreenEggsAnd.Spam

Let the Confusion Begin (3, Insightful)

dfm3 (830843) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500441)

As if things weren't dificult enough to your average Joe Internet User. Most people have a hard enough time understanding that not all websites end in .com as it is.

Re:Let the Confusion Begin (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500611)

It isn't technology's problem if stupid people can't understand it. Especially in cases as this where a shit load of different websites don't end in .com.

I would suggest that you are being too harsh. Slashdot is .org, Wikipedia is .org, and so are many other big websites. Not to mention, everyone outside the US is constantly accessing non .com websites (abc.net.au [abc.net.au] ). Oh and isn't del.icio.us a website?

Don't make the mistake of thinking everyone is stupid. Because most people aren't (though they may be ignorant).

Re:Let the Confusion Begin (3, Insightful)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501543)

Actually it IS everyone's problem if technology is too hard to understand. People don't want to know how all this crap works and they're right.

Also, even if you do understand technology but others don't, it's still your problem (see: SPAM and botnets/Windows PC zombies).

Here is the mandatory car analogy:
I'm not a mechanic yet I can still drive my car.

Re:Let the Confusion Begin (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501651)

> It isn't technology's problem if stupid people can't understand it.

No, it is the problem of companies trying to use it to reach mass audiences. That's why AOL may not make use of '.aol' though they may register it.

What individuals would apply? (1)

PatDev (1344467) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500459)

They're not putting a $185K price tag on domain names, they're putting it on the application for a new generic top level domain. That is, in www.google.com, the $185K isn't to apply for the "google" pieces, it's to apply for the "com" piece.

As an individual, why would you care? And what would a "domain-name-pimp" get out of the deal? Nothing as far as I can see. This looks more like it's being marketed to governments.

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500563)

I don't think so, the price is 185K not 185M

Re:What individuals would apply? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500931)

Damn, you burned him!

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

jgtg32a (1173373) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501105)

Froze him it's -88C

Re:What individuals would apply? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25501089)

185 Kelvin...

Re:What individuals would apply? (5, Insightful)

glindsey (73730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500595)

I disagree. Google has assloads of money, so they register the TLD "google". Then they can provide "groups.google," "search.google," "gmail.google," "maps.google," et cetera. Same for companies like McDonald's, Microsoft, Chase Bank, et cetera. Every big company that can afford it will use the TLD as their domain name, and ICANN will get solid gold Ferraris from the money they rake in.

Meanwhile, do you think Ubuntu will be able to pony up the money for "get.ubuntu"? How will it look when "www.fedora.org" has to compete with "get.windows"?

The .com, .net, and .org TLDs will become the "subsidized housing" of the Net, where all those who can't pony up the cash have to stick their domains.

Re:What individuals would apply? (3, Insightful)

Achromatic1978 (916097) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500945)

Meanwhile, do you think Ubuntu will be able to pony up the money for "get.ubuntu"?

Probably. Mark Shuttleworth made nearly $600mil prior to setting up Canonical. :)

Re:What individuals would apply? (5, Insightful)

Espinas217 (677297) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500959)

Meanwhile, do you think Ubuntu will be able to pony up the money for "get.ubuntu"? How will it look when "www.fedora.org" has to compete with "get.windows"?

It will look exactly the same, most of the people today don't type domain names, they just use a search engine and click on the first link. They won't even know what a domain name is or where to find it.

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

glindsey (73730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500993)

Hmmm... that's a very good point. Somebody should mod you insightful.

I do hope they keep TLDs like ".test" and ".example" off-limits, though.

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501063)

That will work for Microsoft since they will make ".windows" the default. The others will just confuse the public, who are firmly convinced that all domain names end in ".com".

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

gorehog (534288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500649)

Are you kidding? How much do you think .ibm or .microsoft or .jennajameson is to the first person who gets it? Speculation on this will go nuts. It'll be a whole new bubble.

Re:What individuals would apply? (3, Insightful)

glindsey (73730) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500707)

Then IBM, Microsoft, and Jenna Jameson file complaints with ICANN, who use their Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy to automatically award the names to the trademark holders. And, of course, ICANN get even more money out of this, since it costs money to file the complaint.

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

entgod (998805) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500663)

Couldn't the domain-name-pimp just register "pimp" instead of "pimp.com" or something else. Would seem pretty pimp to me.

Re:What individuals would apply? (1)

The Moof (859402) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500905)

Until they register ".visa"
Then they'll set up some records so just typing "visa" resolves to a site. This is going to burn alot of people used to searching from the address bar.

This will open a whole new world of phishing and scamming techniques, that's why every user should care.

ICHC for the internet (4, Funny)

Hoplite3 (671379) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500471)

ICANN has all the moneys?

Why ICANN? Why not ITU? (2, Interesting)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500477)

One thing about the DNS system is that it is very hierarchical (if you want everyone using the same root servers at least). And when the organisation that controls it all is a corrupt organisation answerable to the US government (not the most pristine government in the world), that's a problem.

So, my question is, why can't these functions be handed off to an international organisation dedicated to standards, that isn't a part of the US government and has got a history of not being corrupt? Perhaps the ITU [wikipedia.org] (official ITU website [itu.int] )? (WIPO, who administer domain name disputes, is part of the UNO, and no one complains that they are run by China and Iran.)

As for expanding how many TLD's there are, I don't see why there should not be more. It would be nice if the prices were less of course.

And finally, imagine how many poorly written filters are going to break because they think that all TLD's are two or three chars.

Re:Why ICANN? Why not ITU? (1)

Ctrl-Z (28806) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500567)

As to your last point, you must be aware that there are already several TLDs with more than three characters: .aero, .asia, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, and .travel are all sponsored top-level domains [wikipedia.org] , not to mention .name [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Why ICANN? Why not ITU? (1)

apathy maybe (922212) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500655)

Yeah, and lots of filters break already I guess.

Re:Why ICANN? Why not ITU? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500621)

And finally, imagine how many poorly written filters are going to break because they think that all TLD's are two or three chars.

They are already broken: .museum, .aero, .coop, .mobi, etc.

Re:Why ICANN? Why not ITU? (1)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500647)

Yeah, something like ISO. They're entirely impartial and have never been swayed from what's best for everyone (cough).

ICANN is like ISO, not ITU (2, Funny)

marcosdumay (620877) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500773)

Not, we are talking about a body that is subordinated to "the people" here. ISO is an independent not for profit organization, quite like ICANN.

Re:ICANN is like ISO, not ITU (1)

John Hasler (414242) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501177)

> Not, we are talking about a body that is subordinated to "the people" here.

Then we surely are not talking about the ITU: it's a UN agency.

You'll always find bob in the shadows. (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501291)

I actually suggested ISO a decade ago as it seemed safe then - at least safer than anything else. The ITU was the worst possible choice it's been concerned with prolonging monopolies for decades and was desparatly seeking relevance in a post telophony internet era; the WTO was a more logical choice for the kind of "just do it" internet anarchy, as they'd been promoting breaking down trade barries for ages but they were undergong bad press at the time from anti-globalization demonstrations. Tony Rutkowski was ITU general council at the time and very narrowly got an ITU draft resolution very quietly passed that mad e the internet *legal* as it was not, at the time, under international telecommunications treaty.

The best coverage of this is the freely downloadable book "Exploring the Internet" by Carl Malamud. Go find and ready it for important understanding of the ITU process and how it differs from the IETF process that built the internet. Pay particular attention to one Robert Shaw in the book, you'll see him come up behind the scenes in icann and to this day involved in the areas where there is the least transparency. There are icann meetings thatr are held in secret, to this day. That's Bob's contribution to all this.

Oblig... (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500535)

icann haz new tld?

Makes some sense... (1)

gorehog (534288) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500587)

Domain naming is going to need to grow to be more versatile and expressive. Right now a URL becomes foobarhelloworld.com and there are problems when sites with similar names squat on each other. With IPv6 this only stands to become more confusing. Domain naming is going to have to get better. I think we might see more details and a larger character set added to DNS.

Re:Makes some sense... (2, Informative)

Tacvek (948259) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500819)

Punycode is the preferred IDN system at this time, as does not require making major changes to virtually every running DNS server. The vast majority of the Unicode character set is encode-able using it, so adding a larger character set does not seem to be necessary.

Re:Makes some sense... (1)

Vortran (253538) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500823)

No. A thousand zillion times no. If you make the Internet a place where people can isolate themselves, then it's no longer an Internet. That's what private networks are for.

The Internet works because it is all based on standards. Standard naming, standard language (English like it or not), standard protocols.

Once you make concessions for non-standard this and that, you encourage segmentation and segregation.

Am I the only person left who thinks that .com, .org, .net, .gov, .mil, and .edu are the only TLDs we should have along with country TLDs like .uk.com etc?

Please someone make the insanity stop!

Vortran out

Re:Makes some sense... (2, Insightful)

geniice (1336589) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501217)

.gov, .mil, and .edu are anomalies and should really be a subset of .us. Country TLDs would work fine if the smaller countries kept better control over them but since they don't even there there tends to be issues.

Must...resist... (-1, Troll)

oodaloop (1229816) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500615)

ICANN has .chzbrgr? Sorry, I couldn't help myself. It's like OCD, but for lolcats. Everytime the subject of ICANN comes up, I just lose all control.

Re:Must...resist... (0, Troll)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501195)

Har har. I LMFAO'd at that.
My kingdom for some mod points!

Here's one to look out for ... (1)

Riot.ATL (1365395) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500641)

www.slash.dot?

Re:Here's one to look out for ... (1)

mathx314 (1365325) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501361)

Actually, that's what they want. Make http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot] or if you prefer to make it harder to read, http:/// [http] ...

Application Process (5, Interesting)

Fezzick (913356) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500689)

INDIVIDUAL: I'd liked to register a TLD please.
ICANN: Ok, what is it?
INDIVIDUAL: foo
ICANN: Ok... we'll have to do some extensive research on this.
ICANN: [Turns around, ruffles some papers, turns back around]
ICANN: Ok our extensive army of legal analysts deem "foo" to be acceptable. That will be $180,000 please!

What could possibly require a fee that high (I don't buy the "staff time" and "investment" line)? I mean... if you already resigned to polluting the name space with gimmicky TLDs, why should ".foo" cost more to register than "acme.com"? Is it just a barrier for entry?

Actually... $180,000 is for the luxury of filling out the application form... you aren't guaranteed to get the TLD. So lucky you, you get to pay up front before they say yea or nay.

Re:Application Process (1)

geckipede (1261408) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501709)

Assuming you get to become the registrar for domains using the new TLD, you're paying for an opportunity to sell domains. People will find lots of ways to make money from so many new domains, and ICANN see no sense in giving away moneymaking opportunities for free to whoever comes first.

ICANN found a way to make things worse! (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500739)

As it is, ICANN has been falling flat on what they could be doing to curb the spam epidemic. But now if they start selling TLDs to any schmuck with enough money, they've just thrown what little clout they had, right out the window.

Previously, domain registrars were obligated to abide by the registrars terms set forth by ICANN/Internic as part of their terms for being a registrar in the ICANN-controlled TLDs. But if ICANN is going to sell new TLDs outright, they are handing over the keys entirely. Just wait until people start buying TLDs that are misspelled variants of viagra. Then we'll see spam floods from those and nobody will be accountable for the bogus pharmacies under those domains that are selling poison across the internet.

I agree, ICANN's time has come and gone. It should be replaced by an international organization with international allies for international goals and solving international problems. Anyone who thinks that the US can solve the spam problem just by passing new laws is a fool.

Why do they need the .[something] ? (1)

PatLam (1389819) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500797)

I know this might sound weird, but since the "extention" doesn't make much sense anymore, why use it? Just have it named by your compagnie's name. Web site would be reached by their name and that's it. Say you want to see Sony's site, you type in sony... Most compagnies buy the whole .everything anyway.

And how much will dot sex go for? (1)

neo (4625) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500803)

I hope they have a bidding war for it... they could use the money.

.sucks (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500809)

One could make a mint off a ".sucks" TLD, no?

What's really funny is all the Fortune 500 companies that would have to buy their names and their product names as defensive registrations.

exxon.sucks
aig.sucks

Re:.sucks (1)

CDMA_Demo (841347) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500881)

One could make a mint off a ".sucks" TLD, no?

Will they approve it?

Now all i need is 185K for .sex (1)

StubbornMule (606721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500857)

Can you imagine how much money there is to be made off of .sex? Now I need to figure out how to raise the money and get it. Though I am sure there will be many fights over that one.

Re:Now all i need is 185K for .sex (2, Funny)

knails (915340) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500957)

You study hard, work hard, get promoted to a high ranking position in a large company, obviously.

Definitely not by doing anything sexually explicit.

Re:Now all i need is 185K for .sex (3, Informative)

dyingtolive (1393037) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501103)

Can you imagine how much money there is to be made off of .sex? Now I need to figure out how to raise the money and get it. Though I am sure there will be many fights over that one.

Its worse than that.

I pulled this from http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtld-draft-agreement-24oct08-en.pdf [icann.org] . Apparently they also charge a crazy QUARTERLY fee to keep it in existence. So much for my genius idea of creating a donation site and taking votes on the most inadvertently funny/abusive TLD to register.

"Section 6.1 Registry-Level Fees. Registry Operator shall pay ICANN a Registry-Level Fee equal to the greater of (i) the Registry Fixed Fee of US$18,750 per calendar quarter or (ii) the Registry- Level Transaction Fee calculated per calendar quarter as follows. For any quarter in which the Registry-Level Transaction Fee as calculated in this Section 6.1 exceeds the Fixed Fee, then the Registry-Level Transaction Fee shall be paid. The Registry-Level Transaction Fee will be equal to the number of annual increments of an initial or renewal domain name registration (at one or more levels, and including renewals associated with transfers from one ICANN-accredited registrar to another) during the applicable calendar quarter multiplied by US$0.25 (the âoeTransaction Feeâ) for calendar quarters during which the average annual price of registrations (including all bundled products or services that may be offered by Registry Operator and include or are offered in conjunction with a domain name registration) is equal to US$5.00. For calendar quarters during which the average annual price of registrations is less than US$5.00, the Transaction Fee will be decreased by US $0.01 for each US$0.20 decrease in the average annual price of registrations below $5.00, down to a minimum of US$0.01 per transaction. For calendar quarters during which the average annual price of registrations is greater than US$5.00, the Transaction Fee will be increased by US $0.01 for each US$0.20 increment in the average annual price of registrations above $5.00."

.god google domain (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500877)

Should have suggested this during the google idea hunt.

I ... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25500953)

CAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANN!

Vote with your feet and check out OpenNIC (5, Interesting)

pongo000 (97357) | more than 5 years ago | (#25500985)

OpenNIC [opennicproject.org] has been around since 2000, offering free TLDs. We're still doing it, 8 years later, and it's still free. The only way altroots will flourish in the oppressive environment forced upon us by ICANN is if more people vote with their feet and migrate away from ICANN to alternate roots.

The alternative to ICANN is out there. When will people stop bitching about ICANN and actually do something about it through action rather than words?

Re:Vote with your feet and check out OpenNIC (1)

Mesa MIke (1193721) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501107)

Just as soon as they start voting for third party candidates in presidential elections.

Re:Vote with your feet and check out OpenNIC (4, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501607)

Hey guys. Fancy seeing you here.

People have to understand that ICANN has this power because people choose to point their nameservers at the legacy root servers. Take them out of the loop and poeple, not governments make the decision about what tlds are "legitimate".

We'll see just how much "change" is really coming in America. Remember that icann was mandated by the USG to be a voting member oriented organization. From the get-go there was a coup d'etat by a bunch of old white guys whove held on to it since then, in the interest of big business.

Ten years ago when icann was formed it had two diectoives. Accomplishing these two goals was why icann was (on the face of it) formed. 1) make new tlds 2) do something about trademarks. In reality when icann was coopted by the old-white-guys their real mandate was to stall new tlds which they did for 10 years and now of course only big business can afford them.

But I get a snese it Lucy and Charlie Brown playing football here. Recall than in 1999 they accepted $50K applicaitons for new tlds and took about 20 or 30. Their vetting of the tld applications was so badly done that the day one of them went live a court tied them up with an injunction for running an illegal lottery. Something that had ben pointed out to them well in advance, but they knew better. Dumbshits.

So there are still a bunch of companies that paid $50K and got bugger all. They're supposed to pay another $185K for another spin of the wheel?

Keep in mind there is a backlog of tld applications lodged in varios root server consrtiums around the world, plus an IANA published list of TLD applications receievd from 12 years ago, per the instuctions on the ogiginal internic form inviting people to do so, in accodance with the provisions of the original internic contract.

If they can't figure out how to tell if a tld is bullshit for less than $185K they have no right being in this business - but we've known that all along. These are not the best and the brightest, these are the control freaks that got government jobs, and now that they're losing control, they're just freaks.

Jacking in from the razors edge,
rs79

Slashdot dot slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25501317)

Imagine telling your friends about something you saw at http colon slash slash slash dot slash dot.

Re:Slashdot dot slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25501373)

I think you're missing a 'dot' some where in there...

I'm glad it's affordable for everyone (1)

thetoadwarrior (1268702) | more than 5 years ago | (#25501789)

Yet another way to screw the little guy and help businesses while profiting.

Spammers and criminals will be able to afford it so they can come up with a load of TLDs to try to confuse people, businesses will be able to have their own TLD and guess what the only person screwed is the small guy who may want to start his own business and attempt to have his own TLD but chances are any good TLD will have already been bought up by a spammer or business.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?