Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Proposes New Way To Buy Top-Level Domains

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the how-about-vending-machines dept.

The Internet 198

narramissic writes "Late last week, ICANN put up for comment a new top-level domain (TLD) proposal that would open up the market for generic TLDs on the Internet, basically allowing anyone with $185,000 to buy a new TLD. ICANN has based the cost of a generic TLD on what it believes will be the cost to evaluate applications and protect the organization against risk, said Paul Levins, ICANN's executive officer and vice president for corporate affairs. Any excess money would be redistributed based on the wishes of the Internet community, he said. As of late Tuesday, there were only a couple of comments on the proposal."

cancel ×

198 comments

Yes! (5, Funny)

Gizzmonic (412910) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558713)

Now I can finally register clownpenis.fart !

Re:Yes! (4, Insightful)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558773)

Good luck. I predict a fierce bidding war for .fart.

Re:Yes! (4, Interesting)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558913)

In all seriousness, we have enough ghetto TLDs already...Shelling out 200k for a TLD that may languish in obscurity forever sounds like a risky proposition.

The only real use I see for it is for sites that are forced to register massive numbers of subdomains: having your own TLD would give you a lot of flexibility in that situation. Otherwise? I'm just not getting it.

Re:Yes! (1)

morcego (260031) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559799)

.ibm ? .microsoft ? .google ?

We will be seeing a lot of those if it gets approved.

URL address will keep reminding us of bitnet domains ... Geez.

And what happens with local hostnames? (5, Interesting)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559967)

Many of us have named many of their local machines with a short name having no dots. Maybe as many use have a search setup for their local domain. So what happens if I happen to have a local machine named "tube", and someone decides to register the "tube" TLD and puts an A record on it, which he most likely will -- after all, if you owned a TLD, wouldn't you put your website there?

You got it right, a big mess. And that's just the first thing that comes to mind that open TLD registration might disturb.

I don't have any problem with TLDs being a mess. There is no way to put such a big system as the world DNS in good order and keep it tidy, and after you are used to it, it doesn't make much difference. It might even be better, or at least no worse, than it would have been if there were strict rules about who and what.

However, opening the main namespace for open registration sounds to me like a bad idea. That's a big no-no for me. Especially when it is everyone's main domain namespace, and we are already using it excessivly for a lot of stuff.

The good thing is that the impact wouldn't be that big as, while many companies could afford a TLD of that price, I hope there won't be a huge rush for registrations, and honestly, I don't have any boxes named 'ms' and 'ibm', and even if I have, renaming one or two wouldn't be much a trouble.

But even then, this shouldn't be allowed. At all.

Re:Yes! (3, Insightful)

Warll (1211492) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559003)

You think .fart is going to be a bidding war? Anyone what to guess what .sex is going to go for?

Re:Yes! (5, Funny)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559133)

More than it's worth? Sex.com never even came close to making back it's...hem...wad.

Re:Yes! (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559735)

Goat.sex some how just isn't as funny.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559023)

How about my TLD, icanhazrip.off?

Re:Yes! (2, Insightful)

nine-times (778537) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559235)

On the subject of bidding wars, how will they handle multiple applications for the same TLD. Will it be an auction? (no I will not RTFA)

And beyond that, what if a TLD is determined to have value far exceeding $185k? Maybe that seems like a strange question, but it just seems like giving a private organization permanent control over TLDs is a system that might need to be overthrown or subverted in the future.

But maybe that's just me thinking funny things. I do think there's something disturbing about the rate at which domain names have been taken up by squatters. There are plenty of good domain names that are basically unavailable and at the same time unused (unless you count placeholder pages with ads as being "used"), and I wonder whether there might be some alternative way of dealing with these things.

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559543)

sounds to me like you should submit a comment, my friend

How do they define administrative costs? (4, Insightful)

RustinHWright (1304191) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559607)

Your points bring up another two.

Firstly, ICANN doesn't do all that they should now to "manage" domains and if they're going to add more, then they should do a more honest job of determining the level of service they will commit to for what is, let's face it, a discretionary option. Nobody NEEDS their own TLD. This is about things that are optional. That being the case, isn't it long past time that ICANN committed to having some sort of effective system to address, for example, claimjumping? I lost a domain a few years back because I was in the hospital for two months, in and out of conciousness for several weeks of that, and yet some fucker has been able to come in and take my domain, use it only to get traffic on the subjects I used it for, and my host provider and everybody else I talk to says that basically I'm screwed. Where the hell is ICANN at a time like this?
Afaict, from the first ten pages or so of TFA, the only costs they assess are those of reviewing and processing the application, which is not how any rational organization would approximate them, Even after the application, there will be costs of some sort to maintain the damned thing and afaic, for something this discretionary they should set the bar higher and commit to providing better service, service that costs money, services like domain ownership arbitration, and then estimate the total costs to incorporate that level of service.

In another point, from spagetti suppers at smalltown churches to sale of air rights by private schools, there is nothing unusual about a non-profit treating sale of non-essential goods as a profit opportunity. The term "non-profit" is an oversimplification, as anybody who has gone around selling candy for their sports team knows. We know that some people would pay tens of millions for their own TLD and we know that nobody NEEDS their own TLD so why shouldn't they charge at least a few million each?

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559835)

i want clownpenis.fart

Re:Yes! (3, Funny)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#25560035)

A mysterious Nigerian benefactor has offered to transfer the entire .spam TLD to me. I'll receive 10% of everything, and all I need to do is transfer a few personal details to him...

Re:Yes! (5, Funny)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559285)

ICANN has .cheezburger?

Re:Yes! (0)

swaq (989895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559723)

This is the third time I've seen this joke on Slashdot. It was really funny the first time but it's starting to get old...
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=596435&cid=23953419 [slashdot.org]
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1007117&cid=25500639 [slashdot.org]

Re:Yes! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559801)

So is the reposting of this "news" item.

Re:Yes! (1)

swaq (989895) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559849)

Heh, yeah, I was thinking that as well.

Re:Yes! (1)

w0mprat (1317953) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559787)

Someone give Ben Huh $185k!

Re:Yes! (1)

drpimp (900837) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559963)

I was thinking similarly .. ICANNhazTLD

money? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558731)

Where would the $185,000 go?

"wishes of the internet community"

really? that's pretty vague.

Re:money? (4, Funny)

eln (21727) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558803)

Since it's going to be spent according to the wishes of the "Internet community", I can only assume 95% of it will be spent on porn.

Re:money? (5, Insightful)

mweather (1089505) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558987)

Since when does the internet community pay for porn?

Re:money? (4, Interesting)

blair1q (305137) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559699)

Since when are your eyeballs the "community".

The Internet, like television, has become a farm, where website developers raise eyeball-bearing click-monkeys like you and sell them wholesale to advertising resellers.

Once again, as with TV, you are not the customer of the Internet, you are its product.

Re:money? (2, Insightful)

dattaway (3088) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558827)

"wishes of the internet community"

That's just like "The American People" politicians keep talking about: the wealthy top 0.001% Internet Community.

Coming soon... (4, Funny)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558753)

Slashdot takes the piss by setting its new homepage at aich-tee-tee-pee-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot-slashdot. All those going to aich-tee-tee-pee-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-com are redirected to idle.

Re:Coming soon... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559655)

Sure, but what about slashdot.ORG?

What about? (1)

Zymergy (803632) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558779)

www.microsoft.bob
www.eat.me
etc...
...And will this effect DNS servers that are currently in use? Are there limits to the number of top level domains in their tables?

Re:What about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558955)

And will this effect DNS servers that are currently in use

They can't be effected [merriam-webster.com] if they are already in use.

Re:What about? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559319)

.me already exists.

Pete and Repeat walk into a bar (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558805)

http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/24/1716233&from=rss

Re:Pete and Repeat walk into a bar (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558905)

Dear idiots that moderated the parent as Offtopic - the story is a dupe. The link is to the original /. posting of the story. Now go email CmdrTaco and tell him you're too stupid to have mod points.

Doopie doop doopie doopie doopie doop (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559341)

Dear idiots that moderated the parent as Offtopic - the story is a dupe. The link is to the original /. posting of the story. Now go email CmdrTaco and tell him you're too stupid to have mod points.

We should be allowed to play this song [youtube.com] in the background of all such stories.

Re:Pete and Repeat walk into a bar (1)

gsgriffin (1195771) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559987)

This is from the Department of Redundancy Department.

Hmmm... (4, Interesting)

QRDeNameland (873957) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558859)

This is probably a bad idea, but the article tags did suggest a great new TLD: .wtf.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Funny)

Loibisch (964797) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558885)

I call dibs on omg.wtf!

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559283)

http://OMG.WTF.BBQ/

Re:Hmmm... (2, Funny)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559363)

Pffft. Screw that. goatse.x!!!

Re:Hmmm... (2, Funny)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558893)

What about .fuck or .shit ? Are there any obscenity rules in place? Won't somebody please think of the children?!

Re:Hmmm... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558959)

Just wait until someone gets FuckYou.Jesus

Re:Hmmm... (3, Funny)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558927)

I think 'dot' would be an ideal TLD...

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

Re:Hmmm... (1)

delta4s (904190) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559125)

I'd prefer http://slash.dot/ [slash.dot]

Re:Hmmm... (1)

corsec67 (627446) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559205)

Even better:

http://slash/ [slash]

Why use a dot when you don't have to?

Re:Hmmm... (1)

Otto (17870) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559671)

You'll have competition for that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_fiction [wikipedia.org]

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559989)

You'll have competition for that one.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slash_fiction [wikipedia.org]

There would be even more competition from self harm groups.

Re:Hmmm... (2, Funny)

thepotoo (829391) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559911)

Fuck that, I'm gonna buy .com, .org, and .net

;)

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559289)

Obviously, .tld.

Re:Hmmm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25560005)

Yes, then make all the pages link to one that bashes such a stupid idea of opening up this system...

Internet governance and the common man (4, Insightful)

billtom (126004) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558873)

I hate to be cynical (no, that's a lie, I love to be cynical), but what's the point of commenting on this to ICANN.

ICANN has proven again and again that they listen to corporations and governments (mostly the American) but really couldn't care less what the general internet users want. Or even what the general internet users need. Sure, they'll put up some superficial show of consulting the community, but it never amounts to much.

ICANN has been bought and paid for. Really, the only way a normal internet user can comment on ICANN's actions is to take their business elsewhere (ie. alternate DNS roots).

Re:Internet governance and the common man (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559007)

I was thinking of that. Is there an alternative DNS base out there?

Possibly one that propagates the entries of ICANN, but has it's own entries as well?

Re:Internet governance and the common man (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559187)

Re:Internet governance and the common man (0, Troll)

morgan_greywolf (835522) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559305)

big DUH google search for alternative DNS! [google.com]

That was hard.

It was, actually. I only know how to use MSN Live Search because that's what was installed on my computer.

Re:Internet governance and the common man (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559477)

Hard no, but it would take quite a while to sort through anything to find an answer that met my criteria (notice the second question). I figured if anyone knew any good options, they could take a few seconds to type them out if they felt like being nice, and if not, then no harm no foul.

Re:Internet governance and the common man (1)

billtom (126004) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559571)

I was thinking of that. Is there an alternative DNS base out there?

Possibly one that propagates the entries of ICANN, but has it's own entries as well?

Darn. I was hoping just gloss over that small flaw in my rant.

Yes, there are alternate DNS roots (OpenNIC is probably the most well known). But none of them really have the critical mass required to be all that useful and most of them have some governance issues as well.

I think I'll go back to bang paths.

Re:Internet governance and the common man (1)

zombie_monkey (1036404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559641)

OpenNIC fits that description perfectly. The European servers listed as partaking in the coallition seem to be performing well to me. http://www.opennicproject.org/ [opennicproject.org] Now, and I really mean this on a completely unrelated note, I am probably one of the few people who see this move as an sudden outbreak of common sense, at least in theory. Although everyone sees OMG ICANN will make lots of moneys. The fact that TLDs are all ASCII has hampered the adoption (and subsequently implementation in browsers) of non-ASCII domains because you need to switch input methods. This is one area where most old-time hackers are completely off in what they think is a good idea. To work well the internet needs domains in the native languages of various peoples, I think it's cultural imperialism masked as common-hacker-sense to insist otherwise.

Re:Internet governance and the common man (1)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559907)

I agree, but to make it safe, browsers should be language safe (I think I saw something about this being in firefox 2 or 3), a feature needs to be in place when characters are used from differing languages. Since characters might be rendered the same, but might not BE the same, it could cause confusion.

Re:Internet governance and the common man (1)

zombie_monkey (1036404) | more than 5 years ago | (#25560031)

Firefox has had fine-tuning for this, but it's buried in about:config. Opera is better and Chome has arrived at the almost perfect solution. I don't have time now to go into details right now though, sorry. But basically Chrome lets you pick the languages in which you want domains displayed without warning and otherwise it warns you.

banks poised to loan US our money back @ 20% (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25558879)

'course they're getting it for free. reminds us of how hitler emptied the coffers on his way out.

greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of yOUR dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children, not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one. see you on the other side of it. the lights are coming up all over now. conspiracy theorists are being vindicated. some might choose a tin umbrella to go with their hats. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be yOUR guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. there are still some choices. if they do not suit you, consider the likely results of continuing to follow the corepirate nazi hypenosys story LIEn, whereas anything of relevance is replaced almost instantly with pr ?firm? scriptdead mindphuking propaganda or 'celebrity' trivia 'foam'. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on yOUR brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

we note that yahoo deletes some of its' (relevant) stories sooner than others. maybe they're short of disk space, or something?
http://news.google.com/?ncl=1216734813&hl=en&topic=n
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/23/what.matters.thirst/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/31/opinion/31mon1.html?em&ex=1199336400&en=c4b5414371631707&ei=5087%0A
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080918/ap_on_re_us/tent_cities;_ylt=A0wNcyS6yNJIZBoBSxKs0NUE
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/29/world/29amnesty.html?hp
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/02/nasa.global.warming.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/05/severe.weather.ap/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/weather/06/02/honore.preparedness/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2008/TECH/science/09/28/what.matters.meltdown/index.html#cnnSTCText
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/books/10/07/atwood.debt/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/01/opinion/01dowd.html?em&ex=1212638400&en=744b7cebc86723e5&ei=5087%0A
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/06/05/senate.iraq/index.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/17/washington/17contractor.html?hp
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/03/world/middleeast/03kurdistan.html?_r=1&hp&oref=slogin
(deleted, still in google cache)http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/080708/cheney_climate.html
http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080805/pl_politico/12308;_ylt=A0wNcxTPdJhILAYAVQms0NUE
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/09/18/voting.problems/index.html
(deleted)http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080903/ts_nm/environment_arctic_dc;_ylt=A0wNcwhhcb5It3EBoy2s0NUE
(talk about cowardlly race fixing/bad theater/fiction?) http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/19/news/economy/sec_short_selling/index.htm?cnn=yes
http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=ApTbxRfLnscxaGGuCocWlwq7YWsA/SIG=11qicue6l/**http%3A//biz.yahoo.com/ap/081006/meltdown_kashkari.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/04/opinion/04sat1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(the teaching of hate as a way of 'life' synonymous with failed dictatorships) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081004/ap_on_re_us/newspapers_islam_dvd;_ylt=A0wNcwWdfudITHkACAus0NUE
(some yoga & yogurt makes killing/getting killed less stressful) http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081007/ap_on_re_us/warrior_mind;_ylt=A0wNcw9iXutIPkMBwzGs0NUE
(the old bait & switch...your share of the resulting 'product' is a fairytail nightmare?)
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081011/ap_on_bi_ge/where_s_the_money;_ylt=A0wNcwJGwvFIZAQAE6ms0NUE

is it time to get real yet? A LOT of energy is being squandered in attempts to keep US in the dark. in the end (give or take a few 1000 years), the creators will prevail (world without end, etc...), as it has always been. the process of gaining yOUR release from the current hostage situation may not be what you might think it is. butt of course, most of US don't know, or care what a precarious/fatal situation we're in. for example; the insidious attempts by the felonious corepirate nazi execrable to block the suns' light, interfering with a requirement (sunlight) for us to stay healthy/alive. it's likely not good for yOUR health/memories 'else they'd be bragging about it? we're intending for the whoreabully deceptive (they'll do ANYTHING for a bit more monIE/power) felons to give up/fail even further, in attempting to control the 'weather', as well as a # of other things/events.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=weather+manipulation&btnG=Search
http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&q=video+cloud+spraying

'The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

"I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."

"The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson
consult with/trust in yOUR creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."--chronicles

Re:banks poised to loan US our money back @ 20% (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559191)

Hey retard, they're not getting it for free. The government is buying a chunk of special preferred stock that pays a 10% dividend, which means it's effectively a 10% loan with other restrictions (like not being able to increase shareholder dividends or CxO pay) imposed on the bank.

Re:banks poised to loan US our money back @ 20% (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559401)

This article is about TLDs, not tldr;'s.

Truth in advertising? (5, Insightful)

Yarhj (1305397) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558919)

This sounds like a pretty bad idea. The first thing that comes to mind is the wholesale registration of TLD's for typosquatting.

At least they'll be able to register a proper domain: .con

Re:Truth in advertising? (1)

SatanicPuppy (611928) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559001)

That's the only plus I see from the hefty price tag...Maybe the bastards will bankrupt themselves.

Re:Truth in advertising? (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559569)

Actually, the real money is in .corn

Would you like to download the new google.corn toolbar? Get your updates from microsoft.corn?

Re:Truth in advertising? (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 5 years ago | (#25560003)

Actually, the real money is in .corn

Obviously the /real/ money is, as always, in .porn

Would you like to download the new google.corn toolbar?

The google.porn toolbar is a killer app any way you look at it :-)

Get your updates from microsoft.corn?

. . . microsoft.porn on the other hand - not so much.

Re:Truth in advertising? (1)

LandDolphin (1202876) | more than 5 years ago | (#25560011)

Wish I could mod you insightful. Things liek this will probably be a very large problem.

Just fraking stop (5, Insightful)

800DeadCCs (996359) | more than 5 years ago | (#25558953)

Do we have the basic TLDs? yes, stop...
Does pretty much every country have its own basic TLD? yes, stop...
whoever came up with this idea, please, stop...
especially for that low a price... maybe for $1.85 billion, but not $185,000.

ICANN needs to learn how to play solitaire, maybe then they'd get the reason they're there.
(hint, it's the first rule of both business and IT... "whatever you do, don't touch it").

Re:Just fraking stop (1)

AVonGauss (1001486) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559131)

I agree, except maybe in a few exceptions that I personally truly can not think of, we don't need more top level TLDs. What we do need in my opinion is better usage of the current TLDs and also the elimination of domain squatting.

e4. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559031)

GNAA 4nd support

tu3girl (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559097)

FoR a m0ment and

I for one (0, Redundant)

Opr33Opr33 (1180091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559109)

welcome our new low end, ICANN approved, generic TLD overlords!

Seriously though, do we need any more TLDs?

Re:I for one (2, Funny)

Opr33Opr33 (1180091) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559345)

Was the overlord welcome redundant or the question concerning the need of more TLDs redundant? Because redundant repetition is something that I try over and over again to avoid in the most repetitive manner.

The question we should ask ourselves (4, Insightful)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559145)

Is how many orders of "herbal viagra" do you need to sell to pull in $185,000 to register .v1agra (or other such clever alternate spelling) to run your spamming operation with no registrar oversight ever again?

Yes, this is a terrible idea for reasons already brought up. [slashdot.org]

Re:The question we should ask ourselves (2, Interesting)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559497)

>>Is how many orders of "herbal viagra" do you need to sell to pull in $185,000 to register .v1agra (or other such clever alternate spelling) to run your spamming operation with no registrar oversight ever again?

That would be awesome. I'd setup my local BIND servers to think they are the TLD for .v1agra and point it all to 127.0.0.1. I would then block any e-mail coming form @*.v1agra.

But the majority of spammers wouldn't do this because of how easy it is to block.

What I can see is a security nightmare. In todays mind set, I will register .c0m Or .C0M with a zero. .0rg aka .0RG.

Now how hard is it going to be to spot the different between http://ebay.com/ [ebay.com] and http://ebay.c0m/ [ebay.c0m] for the average joe?

Mindset of a few years down the road. Now common are domains like http://checking.uowbank/ [checking.uowbank] So as a hacker I register U0WBANK replacing the o with a zero. Will your font let you tell the difference in my phishing e-mail?

I'm not against the idea of more TLDs, but I can see how it will complicate security. Of course, if you allow any TLD then why not drop the entire TLD idea alltogether?

Let one register not EBAY.COM but EBAY. So it's HTTP://eBay You could basically do that with these opened up TLDs, but only those with $185k to burn will have something so nice. So we will end up with http://microsoft/ [microsoft] and http://apple/ [apple] but poor guys like me will still have .com at the end.

My $.0185

Re:The question we should ask ourselves (1)

ACMENEWSLLC (940904) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559521)

edit: I want to point out that I uppercased my URIs and /. forced them to lowercase.

Problem? (4, Interesting)

Lord_Sintra (923866) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559193)

Anyone want to try buying .php, or .exe, just to see what happens?

Suffixes FTW! (3, Insightful)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559195)

I predict a large outpouring of capital to secure any suffix TLD. Just think how companies will clamor to make words out of their URL (see: de.licio.us). I am going to buy ".ing" and ".est" and make a fortune!

Re:Suffixes FTW! (2, Funny)

clickety6 (141178) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559437)

Hah - I'm going for .sucks

microsoft.sucks
cocacola.sucks
linux.sucks
bush.sucks
slashdot.sucks

I'm gonna be rich!

Re:Suffixes FTW! (2, Funny)

mathx314 (1365325) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559561)

My website will be the best.est website ever!

Re:Suffixes FTW! (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559739)

Your idea doesn't make sense. Why would .ing or .est be desirable? Rather than renting, say, anyth.ing from you. I'd just buy .anything and be done with it.

Re:Suffixes FTW! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559931)

Rather than renting, say, anyth.ing from you. I'd just buy .anything and be done with it.

So instead of paying, say, $200/year for a second level domain, you're going to shell out $185,000 for the TLD? Only 925 years till you break even ...

Re:Suffixes FTW! (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559965)

Sure you could, if you had $185K. But for those of us want to start a web-based company (and who aren't trust fund babies), renting great.est or amaz.ing would be a viable alternative.

Re:Suffixes FTW! (1)

characterZer0 (138196) | more than 5 years ago | (#25560021)

He would sell you anyth.ing for $100, whereas .anything would cost you $185,000.

Re:Suffixes FTW! (1)

rhizome (115711) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559815)

I am going to buy ".ing" and ".est" and make a fortune!
You're thinking small. If you want to know where this "buy your own TLD" thing is going, try thinking not in terms of three-letter domains, but in namespace and branding. How valuable do you think ".disney" would be? This is basically a death-knell for corporations and TLDs. They'll just get their own and eventually, years from now (or not) .com will be seen as downmarket.

.s, anyone? (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559883)

Any site, make it plural

slashdot.org.s

facebook.s

hot.girl.s

naked.chick.s

etc

according to the wishes of the "Internet community (1)

Still an AC (1390693) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559229)

according to the wishes of the "Internet community"

So they are going to handle this like they do domain squating/kiting? ie. Make as much money as they can and tell everyone else to screw off?

Cost Plus Pricing is Stupid (1)

Hangtime (19526) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559237)

Apparently these jokers do not know how valuable a TLD is. $185,000 is all you would charge? This needs to be well north of $185k more like $18 million. I will buy the TLD .xxx for $185K tomorrow and then make somewhere north of $50 MM off everyone else.

Re:Cost Plus Pricing is Stupid (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559529)

This has been thought about more than you give them credit for. See this post of mine here [slashdot.org] . There is a quarterly fee they charge.

Re:Cost Plus Pricing is Stupid (1)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559603)

Yep, I'm almost - almost - tempted to get a loan to buy up .xxx or .sex

.xxx needs you! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559351)

based on the number of account on slashdot, I say we should each poll $1 & change the internet for good!

Perfect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559371)

Oh boy! I can't wait to get .rtfm and .rtfa

Business plan in the works (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559541)

I will buy tld . (or NULL or whatever) and then I will sell subdomains for 184,000$

Is everybody NUTS on this website ??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#25559599)

I am gravely aggravated by the utter ignorance most posters AND the editor have of the issue. Of course, it is "cool" to bash ICANN because hey... this is ./ !

ICANN wants companies interested in operating new TLDs to think twice about their application and makes them pay a good lump of money to make sure they do. If you pay the money, it doesn't mean you'll automagically get a TLD, it means your application will be reviewed, hence there is absolutely no basis to say that ICANN will sell TLDs for a couple of grans.

Zealot idiots.

.extort TLDs (2, Insightful)

NetSettler (460623) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559651)

So what I want is to buy .extort1 as a TLD for 180K and then basically open up shop so anyone who wants to get foo.com but can't afford it can get foo.extort1 instead. This means the owner of the name foo will have to pay me to keep their brand pure, since they'll want to own foo.extort1. Then when I need more cash, I can make a .extort2 and start selling foo again as foo.extort2 unless foo again pays me to hold their brand.

Well, ok, so probably .extort1 won't sound so good and no one will want to visit it so the foo owner may not care. But if foo is a brand of shoes and I buy a .shoes or a .clothes or a .footwear or a .america or a .united-states or a .united-states-of-america or a .english-speaking or even nuisance names like .go or .yes or .buy or .super or .comm then there are going to be lots of opportunities to extort the owner of foo.com over and over and over.

And to whose benefit? Are there really so many businesses in the world that need domain names? An awful lot of decent domain names don't command much of a price these days now that there are auction sites that show them side-by-side so you can see that the space is really rich with options, and now that domain sales agencies already suggest dozens of reasonable name combinations not yet taken.

This is just a scam pushed by people who want to make money, and it just causes the little guy who is trying to build and protect a brand to scramble. Coke or Disney may not have much trouble covering, since it's a tiny fraction of their operation, but someone trying to build a reasonable brand from nothing may have a great deal of difficulty. And yet, big companies can already afford to just buy out whatever names it wants (or push people out by applying appropriate legal means around an established trademark). And smaller operations can better afford to use a longer name than they can to get a good short name and then never be able to protect it because of a proliferation of more-or-less-duplicates under different top level domains.

And none of this considers the way that heuristics work in text editors, recognizing foo.org as a URL without anyone having to say. When .anything can be a domain name, how will text editors know whether you just forgot to insert a space or you intentionally wanted to auto-highlight something as a domain name.

There are plenty enough domain names. The one thing there might not be is a fair distribution of them across non-English languages or non-US countries. But that isn't what it sounds like their mechanism will fix. If anything it will take the existing problem and compound it.

Domain squatting galore (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559845)

Sounds like it could easily be abused by domain squatters.

How do these sound:

www.micro.soft

www.goog.le
www.face.book
...

.god (1)

jonoton (804262) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559901)

Judging by the amount of money raised for the atheistbus [justgiving.com] the Humanist Society should by .god to stop the godsquad getting it.

Ditch it (0)

FrankSchwab (675585) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559915)

OK, so this proposal basically eliminates the entire rationale behind the Domain Name System. There will no longer be any kind of rational separation of sites. Frankly, I think it's inevitable. It became obvious to me when I attempted to register a personal domain based on my family name, and discovered that the Charles Schwab brokerage had registered Schwab.(com, org, net, edu, gov, etc).

So, my answer is to dump the entire philosophy. Eliminate the .com, .org TLDs, and all the thousands that they are proposing here. Allow thousands of registrars, each of which can register any "tld" that they wish for a nominal fee as long as they can handle the domain lookups for that TLD. Upgrade the root nameservers to support millions of requests for millions of tlds, and just throw it open.

Few complain that I can register "DonkeySodomy.com" now; why should it be different if I register ".DonkeySodomy"? Why should it cost $1800 to register a tld when a domain costs $6? Don't vet the TLDs, just let people register them.

Use the rules and challenge process in place today - if you think you have a stronger claim on a name than someone else, enter into arbitration to decide who has the rights.

For non-trademarked TLD's, run an auction for the initial disposition - auctioning off ".sex" or ".slashdot" should generate plenty of money to administer this program.

I still won't be able to get ".schwab", but I think that's OK. John McDonald down the hall probably can't expect to get the domain he'd want either, nor Ida Brown Moffet expect to get a domain based on her initials. /frank

Mod Article +1 Funny (0, Troll)

DynaSoar (714234) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559937)

For two* very good reasons:

"Any excess money would be redistributed based on the wishes of the Internet community"

They're going to be working with 6 figure dollar amounts, and they're going to redistribute what's (1*) "left over" (people who get that deep into cash tend to find there's never any left over) and (2*) they're going to base the decision on the opinions of the ultimate peanut gallery.

The second point lends the amount of credence to the first point that it is due.

Here comes .co .con .co, .cok .coj .coom .ccom .om (1)

mkcmkc (197982) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559939)

Not to mention

  • microsoft.co.m
  • microsoft.c.om
  • microsof.tc.om
  • etc

Complaint address (3, Informative)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#25559941)

From the gTLD Applicant Guidebook public Comment forum [icann.org] page, there is an address posted for comments:
  • gtld-intro@icann.org

I strongly encourage people to write to that address and voice your opinion on the issue. That is, after all, why it is called a public forum.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...