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!

US Government Responds Harshly To ICANN gTLD Plans

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the and-your-shoe's-untied dept.

The Internet 133

ICANN posted its proposal for expanding gTLDs late in October, and now the US government has issued its scathing response (PDF, 11 pp., linked from there), from the departments of Commerce and Justice. The initial criticism is that John Levine sent a note to a policy mailing list and summarized the concerns raised as ranging from "...insufficient attention to monopoly and consumer protection, to lack of capacity to enforce compliance, to overreach into non-technical areas such as adjudication of morality, to what they'll do with all the extra money since they are a non-profit. Their first concern is that in 2006 the ICANN board said they would commission a study on economic issues in TLD registrations such as whether different TLDs are different markets, substitutability between TLDs, and registry market power, issues which are fairly important in any new TLD process. Here it is two years later, they're rushing to set up the new TLD process, but there's no study. 'ICANN needs to complete this economic study and the results should be considered by the community before new gTLDs are introduced.'"

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

I see... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195795)

It's happening all over again

What? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195797)

What the fuck is this shit even about? Does anyone care? Stop

yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195807)

But why the heck is the header for this article red on the front page? Slashdot's been dicking around with the site's layout, especially the all-minified script, in a very untransparent way making browsing the site a bit of a chore.
When is Taco going to let everyone in on the secret of Slashdot's development?

Re:yeah sure (1, Informative)

Roland Piquepaille (780675) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195859)

But why the heck is the header for this article red on the front page?

Have you ever been tested [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:yeah sure (1)

falcon5768 (629591) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195989)

hm i didnt think slashdot even HAD a red header. Are you perhaps colorblind?

Re:yeah sure (2)

Jah-Wren Ryel (80510) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196599)

hm i didnt think slashdot even HAD a red header. Are you perhaps colorblind?

No. He is not colorblind. For one thing, colorblindness doesn't mean you see the wrong color, it means it is very hard to distinguish between certain colors. Thus complaining that a color is "wrong" is probably the last thing a colorblind person would do.

And yes, it probably was red. I've seen the phenomenon myself a few times over the last week or two. It has only been on the top most article and only when it was relatively "fresh" so far, for me, it has reverted back to green by the time I get around to reloading the front page.

Re:yeah sure (2, Informative)

Q-Hack! (37846) | more than 5 years ago | (#26198439)

If you bought the slashdot subscription then you get to see articles before a non-subscriber. These articles are always with a red border. The only thing is you are not allowed to post responses until they turn green.

Re:yeah sure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196545)

But why the heck is the header for this article red on the front page?

It's not. Not now, anyway. Same Slashdot-green as every other header on the front page.

Slashdotted? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195817)

I get a 404 on that PDF. Anyone have a mirror?

From TFS, I don't really see what all the fuss is about. Why does anyone care? Pretty much anyone can buy a .com name, for any reason, and then resell subdomains -- this is just the same thing, without the .com, and much more expensive.

Re:Slashdotted? (2, Informative)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195855)

Try http://forum.icann.org/lists/gtld-guide/pdfVeSal4DHqu.pdf [icann.org] - it's linked off a linked page off TFA.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196491)

Yes, that 404s on me.

Re:Slashdotted? (5, Informative)

Slashdotvagina (1434241) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195881)

The difference is that for a new TLD, ICANN estimates the fees involved as:

The Evaluation Fee is designed to make the new gTLD program self-funding only. This was a recommendation of the Generic names Supporting Organization (GNSO). A detailed costing methodology â" including historical program development costs, and predictable and uncertain costs associated with processing new gTLD applications through to delegation in the root zone â" estimates a per applicant fee of $US185,000. This is the estimated cost per evaluation in the first application round.

The fee also includes $US100,000 per applicant relating to both fixed and variable costs of processing each application.

So if you have $100,000 to give to ICANN plus another $85K or so for expenses, you can have your proposal for .goatse or .profit considered. For a non-profit organization, it's surprising that it costs $100K for just the application fee. Given that they're essentially opening the floodgates for new TLDs, surely their historic costs for organizational overhead with maintaining only a few TLDs will drop drastically, such that the absurd fees they're charging will no longer be warranted.

I predict the ICANN board members and key employees will be given very hefty bonuses and pay raises to offset the potential for profits.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196487)

My assumption would be that the $100k is meant as a deterrent to that flood of TLDs. I'm guessing most organizations would rather pay $10 or $50 for a domain or three.

And, hey, it's like the "I Am Rich" app. If the rich want to waste their money, let them.

The only part that's not fair is the fact that one organization gets to monopolize this, and unilaterally decides how much it should cost, what the procedure is, etc. But that hasn't changed, and I have no idea what a good solution is.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196601)

Given the profits that can be made selling subdomains of the TLD, $100k is a drop in the bucket, for the corporations that would be flooding with TLD registrations.

The capital is there. Companies may be tightening in rough economic times, but $100k is still absolutely nothing, as far as capital outlay for anything except a small business.

i.e. the big domain registrars who have the most to gain by having lots of TLDs, will easily provide the flood of registration requests.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

SanityInAnarchy (655584) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197439)

Given the profits that can be made selling subdomains of the TLD, $100k is a drop in the bucket,

That balances out, I think -- that is, if it's really so cheap, and really so profitable, a large number of corporations which have that $100k will spend it, and before you know it, the domains won't be worth as much. But that'll happen faster than with .com, and you won't exactly have trolls willing to spend $100k just on the offchance of a Google hit.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199609)

the domains won't be worth as much. But that'll happen faster than with .com,

Names are english words.

Squatters will seek first to buy out every possible english word.

That way when an english speaker types "socks" into their browser, it goes to the buyer's site which is full of paid ads for socks.

100k is jack squat man (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197427)

That is like spit in the bucket for the people who would buy TLD's. And worse, all it does is make it easy for those with means to buy TLDs and those with out to get screwed.

So you'll get www.cocacola and www.pepsi (or just pepsi) but never www.apache or www.firefox.

That actually raises an interesting question. Under this hypothetical regime, if I cough up a cool $100k and register "coryking", do I have to add a hostname? Can I just be "http://coryking" and "cory@coryking" or will I have to go "http://hostname.coryking" and "me@somewhere.coryking"?

Re:100k is jack squat man (1)

rpetre (818018) | more than 5 years ago | (#26198089)

Theoretically it's doable, once you have the TLD, you can have whatever you want in that zone.

However most (all?) resolvers out there when being confronted with a hostname with no dots in in assume it needs to be qualified an try appending the entries specified in the search domain list. They'll probably try it as a TLD only after exhausting the alternatives. BTW, nothing prevents using your fancy TLDs in your private network, just declare them in your nameserver.

Oh, and I've not even touched how some browsers default to some non-dns interpretations of "bare words". Try putting "coryking" in the location bar in Firefox and you'll be taken straight to google without even trying any of the DNS stuff I mentioned above.

Re:Slashdotted? (4, Insightful)

lysergic.acid (845423) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196541)

from the day ICANN was created it was pretty much bound to become a corrupt puppet-organization for commercial interests. that's why it's been headed by economists, businessmen, and corporate consultants rather than IT professionals and computer scientists/researchers. the lack of transparency/openness, community dialog, and international input has guaranteed that ICANN's policies serve the interests of corporations like InterNIC rather than the global online community.

it's very tragic that we have such an undemocratic and profit-motivated organization running the internet rather than a more civic-minded and open organization like the W3C, which is actually run by technically competent individuals who are more interested in technological progress than giving kick-backs to their corporate buddies.

I'll tell you one thing though (2, Insightful)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197447)

It is a big step forward from the days when if you wanted a domain name, you had to go to Internic and hack up $75/year. Now you can register at godaddy for $7/year or you can even renew for the "low price" of $30/year by being stupid and replying to those fake-invoices you get in the mail from scam companies when your domain is about to expire.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

Gruff1002 (717818) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197499)

You're right it's all about fucking money again. I don't know when businesses (non-profit, right!)will finally get it, what does it take another serious global economic crisis to teach idiots the end result of greed? Wait, its okay for me to be greedy but not anyone else.
I'm part of the Baby Boomer generation and all, but our mantra thru the 60's of denouncing huge corporations is not representative of our actions today. It's fucking sickening.

Re:Slashdotted? (1)

HJED (1304957) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197725)

The difference is that for a new TLD, ICANN estimates the fees involved as:

The Evaluation Fee is designed to make the new gTLD program self-funding only. This was a recommendation of the Generic names Supporting Organization (GNSO). A detailed costing methodology â" including historical program development costs, and predictable and uncertain costs associated with processing new gTLD applications through to delegation in the root zone â" estimates a per applicant fee of $US185,000. This is the estimated cost per evaluation in the first application round.

The fee also includes $US100,000 per applicant relating to both fixed and variable costs of processing each application.

So if you have $100,000 to give to ICANN plus another $85K or so for expenses, you can have your proposal for .goatse or .profit considered. For a non-profit organization, it's surprising that it costs $100K for just the application fee. Given that they're essentially opening the floodgates for new TLDs, surely their historic costs for organizational overhead with maintaining only a few TLDs will drop drastically, such that the absurd fees they're charging will no longer be warranted.

I predict the ICANN board members and key employees will be given very hefty bonuses and pay raises to offset the potential for profits.

or perhaps it is to dither people who can't afford the infrastructure or people who would do phishing scams

This is what worries me (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195827)

"to overreach into non-technical areas such as adjudication of morality"

All the governments that don't have the same level of free speech (pretty much just the US) delve into censorship via guise of morality. Considering the strength of the internet, it would be especially worrisome if the governing authority will start deciding you and what you say is not all right with them. It starts with the things hard to defend (say Stormfront) but are protected under the 1st amendment and the loop will close from there.

Re:This is what worries me (1)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196991)

All the governments that don't have the same level of free speech (pretty much just the US) delve into censorship via guise of morality.

Indeed, the US government even had the clarity of mind to come up with free speech zones!

Re:This is what worries me (1)

Nathrael (1251426) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199415)

So you are saying that free speech is very restricted in the US? I think there are a couple of countries you should visit, and no, I'm not speaking about some fundamentalist middle-eastern nations, but industrial ones, like Germany or Australia.

Re:This is what worries me (1)

theaveng (1243528) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200073)

Germany?

You can't say the word "Nazi" there or sell swastikas (an ancient Hindu symbol) without getting arrested or fined. That's not free speech.

i'm #1 (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195835)

first! :)

Re:i'm #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195889)

First post fail.

Re:i'm #1 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196121)

Well, in that case...
 
w00t! Twenty seventh post!
 
Anyone can do this #post thing if you lower your standards enough.

Opening TLDs (5, Insightful)

suso (153703) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195879)

This is such a bad idea. I think any company who buys these will be shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, in the 90s companies generally hated putting http:/// [http] in advertising. Then they dropped the www part and just made it company.com. Now they are having their ultimate dream. To drop the .com part too. But with that comes a major problem. How are average people going to distinguish what is a internet address from something else?

Imagine this, Ford says in its advertising: "Go to ford.com". Its obvious here what to do. Now imagine they get just the TLD 'ford'. So what do you say. "Go to ford"? What the hell does that mean. Now they'll start having to say things like "Type ford into your web browser's address bar" Yeah, that's a whole lot easier to say than ford.com. Idiots.

I hope this totally backfires on all the marketing and sales people in the world so that they learn their lesson.

Re:Opening TLDs (4, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195931)

The other problem is that the proposed approach essentially is such a mess that it actually shoot itself in the foot. By creating so many new TLDs confusion created, rather that eliminated and we potentially end up in a situation when where TLDs are useless.

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

wizardforce (1005805) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196033)

tlds largely are useless, anything other than .gov or .edu is a mess

Re:Opening TLDs (5, Informative)

JanneM (7445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196147)

"tlds largely are useless, anything other than .gov or .edu is a mess"

You mean that .com and -org are a mess. Most tld's are not a mess at all. Country tld's are usually much better managed than those free-for-all domains, with some actual enforcement of who may register what kind of domain.

Re:Opening TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196755)

Unless of course, we're talking about the .tk TLD.

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197151)

I do not think it is better enforcement, as much as simply not being such an attractive target for domain squatters and speculators.

.uk has little enforcement (apart from .gov.uk and obscure things like .ltd.uk), and it is not (in general) a mess (apart fromthe fact that it is .uk in ther first place, when it should be .gb).

Re:Opening TLDs (2, Informative)

Davidis (1390527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199001)

uk actually fits better as that is what the country is known as. the United Kingdom or Great Britain and Ireland to give it its full title. Northern Ireland and the channel islands are included in the UK while GB excludes them. Ireland has its own separate TLD now but this only applies to southern Ireland.

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

pegdhcp (1158827) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197561)

Remember when ripe.net dropped out of existence due to a missing receipt, taking most of European networks' ASN filters with it???

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

drspliff (652992) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197707)

I was going to register somethingch.an, but the registration laws required me to be a resident or a business incorporated in netherlands antilles, and to pay a $140 a year fee. For business that's fine... just for a pet project with a funny domian name? no way.

I wish other TLDs were like this :/

Re:Opening TLDs (2, Insightful)

Midnight Thunder (17205) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196981)

tlds largely are useless, anything other than .gov or .edu is a mess

Part of the problem is domain parking. I thought ICANN was meant to crack down on this, but once again money has continued the corruption.

I still think they're doing it all wrong. (2, Insightful)

khasim (1285) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196067)

The original TLD's were fine back when the Internet was primarily a US system.

Now that it is worldwide, they need to look at getting away from new TLD's and going to country code domains(example, .us or .cn). That way each country can establish its own standards for what is and is not allowed.

And for those people who are going to say that it makes more work for the Pepsi people (or whatever) to register pepsi.whatever in each country, there should not be a problem with SCRIPTING that. And I'm sure that they can afford it.

That way, if someone in the UK has a great idea for a LOCAL business name they can register it in the UK and not have to work around someone in the US who has already registered that name.com.

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (4, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196161)

"Now that it is worldwide, they need to look at getting away from new TLD's and going to country code domains(example, .us or .cn). That way each country can establish its own standards for what is and is not allowed."

Must have been a very comfortable rock, to be sleeping under for so long. ^_^

Sorry - but seriously, that's exactly the system we already have today. Most companies, especially local companies only doing business in their home country (and that is the vast majority of businesses after all) already register only under their country domain, and most country domains already have their own country-specific regulations for their use.

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (1)

bug1 (96678) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197009)

Sorry - but seriously, that's exactly the system we already have today. Most companies, especially local companies only doing business in their home country (and that is the vast majority of businesses after all) already register only under their country domain Because half of them have some advertising squater at the tld causing confusion to people looking for legit pages. If we had restrictions on who could have .com .net .org to start with then we wouldnt have gotten into this confusing situation of country domains being second class domains. Buyt it doesnt matter what changes are made now (for better or worse) its too entrenched for people to change their behaviour.

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26198037)

Well, Citizen Janne-EMM-2, in recognition of the selfless display of your devotion to the Computer, you have been granted a brevet promotion to the Red clearance and a year's worth of supply of Bouncy Bubble Beverage.

With your new Red clearance, you are expected to volunteer for at least 3 Troubleshooter missions as the Team Leader during the next 2 months. Please report to the nearest Troubleshooter Recruitment Center in the Orange zone for your briefing.

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196217)

That way each country can establish its own standards for what is and is not allowed.

This is the most important reason for control to remain in the hands of the US as long as possible. At least with the US at the helm, crazy theocracies and brutal one-party governments are at least forced to work at preventing the enlightening power of the internet from spoiling all their brainwashing. Besides, your argument is irrelevant as there has long been .co.[nation].

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (3, Funny)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197003)

Of course, that does not do anything against crazy theocracies and brutal two-party governments...

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196381)

The original TLD's were fine back when the Internet was primarily a US system.

Now that it is worldwide, they need to look at getting away from new TLD's and going to country code domains(example, .us or .cn). That way each country can establish its own standards for what is and is not allowed.

And for those people who are going to say that it makes more work for the Pepsi people (or whatever) to register pepsi.whatever in each country, there should not be a problem with SCRIPTING that. And I'm sure that they can afford it.

That way, if someone in the UK has a great idea for a LOCAL business name they can register it in the UK and not have to work around someone in the US who has already registered that name.com.

Are you serious? [wikipedia.org]

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196611)

No offense, but the last thing the world needs to do is become MORE provincial.

The guy in the UK who wants to register a name for his local business can do that today under the UK tld and he doesn't need to worry with .com.

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (1)

RMH101 (636144) | more than 5 years ago | (#26198447)

Why doesn't anyone use .co.us for US businesses?

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (1)

MightyYar (622222) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199147)

Simple historical reasons. dot-com is cheap and was available well before dot-us. Remember that dot-us had these really stupid rules, which made dot-com much more attractive. Until 2002, you couldn't register a 2nd level domain under dot-us, so your address would look like "carls-auto.nj.us".

In other words, there was no such thing as a "US" domain, only a bunch of individual state domains. So... dot-com took off instead. You do see dot-us a lot more now that they changed the rules.

Re:I still think they're doing it all wrong. (1)

xaxa (988988) | more than 5 years ago | (#26198503)

No offense, but the last thing the world needs to do is become MORE provincial.

The guy in the UK who wants to register a name for his local business can do that today under the UK tld and he doesn't need to worry with .com.

Except that people in the UK are so used to ".com" that they might type that first, and end up at a squatter's page. (Having said that, I'll often hear "is that com or co-dot-uk?" when telling someone an address.)

But in practice, I think most people just type the company name into Google.

Re:Opening TLDs (5, Insightful)

Enter the Shoggoth (1362079) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196079)

This is such a bad idea. I think any company who buys these will be shooting themselves in the foot. I mean, in the 90s companies generally hated putting http:/// [http] in advertising. Then they dropped the www part and just made it company.com. Now they are having their ultimate dream. To drop the .com part too. But with that comes a major problem. How are average people going to distinguish what is a internet address from something else?

Imagine this, Ford says in its advertising: "Go to ford.com". Its obvious here what to do. Now imagine they get just the TLD 'ford'. So what do you say. "Go to ford"? What the hell does that mean. Now they'll start having to say things like "Type ford into your web browser's address bar" Yeah, that's a whole lot easier to say than ford.com. Idiots.

I hope this totally backfires on all the marketing and sales people in the world so that they learn their lesson.

I don't know what planet your from, but on planet earth being intrinsically unable to learn lessons is a prerequisite for entry in sales or marketing.

Re:Opening TLDs (4, Insightful)

Al Dimond (792444) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197037)

I'm sure you meant this as a joke, but sales and marketing people are no fools. Just because most sales pitches and advertisements are silly and useless to knowledgeable and rational people doesn't mean that they're not generally effective, or that marketers don't work pretty hard to learn what sort of sales pitches work.

Re:Opening TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26197997)

Read what you just wrote and tell me that we shouldn't implement the death penalty for sales and marketing people...

Re:Opening TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200007)

People not purchasing things they don't need for stupid illogical reasons would be bad for our consumption driven economy.

There are a lot of stupid people. They have too much money and don't know how to spend it. Marketing and sales people help fix that.

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

rickb928 (945187) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196081)

Interesting. Just typing 'ford' could get you to www.ford.com. No I know, it's just 'ford'.

This is cool, in that it would seem hard to hijack the 'ford' tld.

On the other hand, this would screw with various search toolbars and gizmos, since your browser would have to be prepared to accept 'ford' as a valid URL.

I'm sort of in the mood to see the Google Toolbar (and Yahho!'s also) screwed with. So long as they get Microsoft-anything toolbars as well, I'm for it.

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

Guspaz (556486) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196089)

Or they might say "go to mustang.ford for more info"

People would see the dot, and figure it out.

Re:Opening TLDs (2, Insightful)

carlzum (832868) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196093)

Even if you could go to ford, most web users will continue to enter the site name right into the browser's search box. It's not just a matter of laziness or the inability to type a URL. You have far less risk of inadvertently visiting a domain squatter's pop-up and porn riddled site, you see other sites that may be of interest (if you're buying a Ford, a Consumer Report review may be more useful than the corporate site), and most search engines recognize common spelling errors. Sure, people game page ranks and pay for placement, but it beats keying in URLs.

Re:Opening TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196199)

Imagine this, Ford says in its advertising: "Go to ford.com". Its obvious here what to do. Now imagine they get just the TLD 'ford'. So what do you say. "Go to ford"? What the hell does that mean. Now they'll start having to say things like "Type ford into your web browser's address bar" Yeah, that's a whole lot easier to say than ford.com. Idiots.

Fortunately Ford will soon be bankrupt and we won't have to deal with this problem.

TLDs matter less than they used to. User studies & focus groups provide interesting info. Most people, when you ask them to go to oprah.com, will first go to google, then type "oprah.com" into the search box, then click on the first search result.

Niggeroos (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196327)

Has anyone pinged them to get their opinion on the matter?

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

DavidD_CA (750156) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196421)

Or the advertising community will agree on something short like this:

    web: www.ford

Or something like this:

    For more information, visit mustang.ford

Or email me at david@us.ford

It's really not that hard to think of some examples where people will understand what you're saying. And with enough advertising, people will catch on very quickly just like they know what "ford.com" means today.

There could even be a symbol, like a globle or arror or something like we see today, when placed next to a word indicates that it is a domain name.

Re:Opening TLDs (3, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196423)

Remember "AOL Keywords"?

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196591)

SHUT UP, YOU!
JUST SHUT UP!

*points gnarled finger, glares*

(I don't wanna be old anymore.) :/

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

the_womble (580291) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196615)

So what do you say. "Go to ford"? What the hell does that mean. Now they'll start having to say things like "Type ford into your web browser's address bar" Yeah, that's a whole lot easier to say than ford.com.

I think the idea is that they will register the ford tld and use addresses like: www.ford or car.ford etc.

Most people think that www is compulsory: it is omitted from advertising because people will add it anyway. If you have an address like http://example.com/ [example.com] you have to have a redirect from http://www.example.com/ [example.com]

Re:Opening TLDs (1)

mysidia (191772) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196625)

They'll say "go to www.ford" or "go to web.ford"

Which will just be aliases to plain ford.

Re:Opening TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26197399)

Huh? The message would simply say "visit mustang.ford" How hard is that?

Business (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195895)

I'll show you how I see it here - this explanation to me may seem semi-classical.

It has to do with what a domain is anyway. These are for businesses, and not for putting free bandwidth out there. In my view, they are going to have a lot of busines backlash here. This is the businesses property here. You are saying that bandwidth is a form of business. This is not for leasing Boeing lines to Texas.

A lot of businesses have done some significant work to tight crank their domains for security, and if one of these organizations wants comm hacks, you might of well bring down all of PSN.

We should stop using DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26195911)

DNS is old school - it should die. Network objects should be identified by persistent identifiers - such as a hash digest - which require no central coordination whatsoever. Overlay networks should be used to provide decentralized address resolution, object distribution, persistance, caching, etc. Create associated manifests containing metadata as required for human readable names and so on.

Re:We should stop using DNS (1)

Joe U (443617) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196181)

I'm onboard. I hate the current DNS setup, so go write a RFC.

Re:We should stop using DNS (1)

Iamthecheese (1264298) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196343)

Good metadata is hard to come by. By this I mean it's very expensive to input metadata for every object.

Re:We should stop using DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196853)

No more difficult than creating an address record, or an HTTP location.

Re:We should stop using DNS (2, Funny)

msuarezalvarez (667058) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197029)

Indeed. I have already drafted a proposla, which you can find at d342cc19-1153-4e87-a957-f9d39f28b160 with all the details worked out. You can mail me at f89fa712-1117-4ee5-9d2c-9733900c00db if you want more information. The mailing list is at 57dfdf23-0601-4c84-8e72-c70bf5387de8. By the way, 13691030-4d47-4d56-8286-5323dda8b017, 8af03a28-9cc7-4e5e-a5d3-e15d0ab9b4ab and 47d12fec-93dc-494a-88c0-0ad5961b959d might also interest you.

It is all so fucking easy too (1)

coryking (104614) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197465)

If you can't remember a 128-bit hash, you should be on the internet anyway.

super duper domain names (4, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195977)

i look forward to visiting h t t p colon slash slash dot slash dot dot slash dot slash

Re:super duper domain names (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196213)

h t t p colon slash slash slash dot dot dot == slashdot.dot

Re:super duper domain names (1)

ion.simon.c (1183967) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196607)

http://./.././ [.]

Filler for the filter.

That One Belongs To O.J. (1)

maz2331 (1104901) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200101)

I heard he tried to get slash slash backslash dot com....

Just to find the real killer, of course.

This just in... (2, Interesting)

Subverted (1436551) | more than 5 years ago | (#26195987)

This just in, the US government is pissed off at an international organization... Oh...wait, nothing new here.

Re:This just in... (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196057)

When did ICANN become an international organization? It is the bitch of DoC and always has been.

Re:This just in... (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196223)

It's sad that some uninformed dunce moderated the GP 'insightful'.

Bad URL. Get document here. (4, Insightful)

Animats (122034) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196059)

The given URL is no good. Message with Department of Commerce document as attachment is here. [icann.org]

I'm amazed that something this good emerged from regulatory agencies under the Bush Administration. I suspect that some staffers are thinking very hard about what happens to their career once government regulation again gets, as Obama puts it, "adult supervision".

Re:Bad URL. Get document here. (2, Insightful)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196629)

I'm amazed that something this good emerged from regulatory agencies under the Bush Administration. I suspect that some staffers are thinking very hard about what happens to their career once government regulation again gets, as Obama puts it, "adult supervision".

I'd be surprised to find out that George Bush is an omnipotent god with an all-seeing eye. Likewise, I'd find it difficult to believe that his administration is ran by a Machiavellian cabal intent on undoing any sanity they come across (stroking pet cats optional).

Instead, this act is likely done by one of the many bureaucrats that are doing their best in their little corner of the Government. They likely operate at a level that does not require the attentions of the President's inner (or even several-times-removed) circle. And thus they plug along doing their thing... and hey, occasionally getting things right (competency will either lead to a touch of insanity or flight from Civil Service).

Re:Bad URL. Get document here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26198775)

Likewise, I'd find it difficult to believe that his administration is ran by a Machiavellian cabal intent on undoing any sanity they come across

Hey, you can't argue with the evidence...

For thosing of you wondering what a gTLD was (3, Informative)

NinthAgendaDotCom (1401899) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196071)

A generic top-level domain (gTLD) is one of the categories of top-level domains (TLDs) maintained by the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) for use on the Internet.

Overall, IANA currently distinguishes the following groups of top-level domains:

        * infrastructure top-level domain (.arpa)
        * country-code top-level domains (ccTLD)
        * sponsored top-level domains (sTLD)
        * generic top-level domains (gTLD)
        * generic-restricted top-level domains

about time (5, Insightful)

r7 (409657) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196109)

Thank goodness for John Levin and Meredith Baker. Voices of sanity above the din. I don't know what is going on at ICANN but it clearly has been disabled by special interests, groupthink, and dispersion of responsibility. Their "any tld is fine with us" plan (originally proposed by France's Internic) shows such a profound lack of concern for the consequences that it's clear the bulk of their membership is simply not technically qualified.

The downside this all illustrates, beyond any doubt, is that ICANN does not and can not work in its present format. It needs to be reconstituted to insure that all members have no conflicts of interest and sufficient experience and expertise with technical and security issues. I hope it can retain the non-profit status and multi-country membership, without being so inclusive (of small countries) that it cannot avoid being corrupted as ISO was when Microsoft bought the ISO's endorsement for OOXML, or ICANN itself was when Verisign did the same to win the exclusive contract for .com.

Re:about time (1)

NJRoadfan (1254248) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196575)

The downside this all illustrates, beyond any doubt, is that ICANN does not and can not work in its present format.

And that wasn't apparent during the whole Registerfly debacle? They really had no clue what to do if a registrar failed, kinda pathetic when such administrative matters were the whole reason the agency was created. Meanwhile they still have their lavish meetings all over the place, which I'm sure aren't cheap affairs. Gotta love those "profitable" non-profits that never seem to actually do something, how American.

RE: US Government ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196173)

In essence, here are the facts.

1. The Department of Justice exists to protect the US President George Walker Bush from litigation coming from the Citizens of the United States of America.

2. The Department of Homeland Security exists to protect the US President George Walker Bush from challanges from the the Citizens of the United States of America. Currently, the Dept. of Homeland Security views all Citizens of the United States of America, excepting those hired under loality oath to the Dept. of Homaland Security, as the greatest prevaling threat to US President George Walker Bush and the Hooligans running the upper echelon of the US Federal Governmnent.

3. The Department of Defense exists to protect the US President George Walker Bush, and Hooligans, from threats external to the United States of America. Threats to the Citizens of the United States of America, and the States of the United States of America, are allowed and welcome since they, the United States of America Citizens and States thereof, in the minds of the Federal Executives are the Prime source of Terriorists acts, and the greatest threat to the US Executives.

Internet confusion (4, Insightful)

panoptical2 (1344319) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196179)

There are several bad things about the ability for users to create gTLDs. As specified earlier, no one will be able to recognize them (for example, http://mustang.cars.ford/ [cars.ford] would this throw you off?).

Some other overlooked problems are:
a. The internet would become further disorganized. It's already plenty disorganized, but at least the majority of web sites out there are under the .com, .org, or .net gTLDs. Taking this away would only increase said disorganization.
b. .com would be rendered obsolete, given a couple of years (possibly 10-20), and everyone who spent $10/year for their own .com domain would soon move to another gTLD that offers cheaper registration. This is a positive feedback sure to end in collapse; as competition over domain registration increases, profit margins for domain registration/gTLD maintenance companies decreases, resulting in a bubble sure to burst.
c. Lastly, no mention is made as to who would be maintaining the new gTLDs, so I'm assuming that maintenance is left in the hands of the companies buying the gTLDs. This could mean that the quality of the DNS registries and root nameservers for TLDs would decrease. This is really bad, because currently, it's these DNS registries and the 13 root nameservers located around the world that control the internet.

Thus, I side with the government on this one; ICANN is just looking for ways to make more money.

ICANN need to be taken out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26196207)

They seriously fail now.
And i'm being deadly serious here.

Screw ICANN, screw every damn one of them.

This plan of theirs will completely screw up the WWW.
The amount of confusion as it is right now is surprisingly high, now with this, its pretty much the worst it will ever get.

Scrap the entire damn thing and start again.
Then release it alongside IPv6, whenever the hell that happens.
I'm going to bed, wake me up when these idiots have actually done something smart.

Or... (1)

velcroman270 (1436569) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196245)

everbody on earth (with a decent connection) could download Firefox,use OpenDNS, and just type in the awesome bar..works for me!

Good thing! (2, Insightful)

nog_lorp (896553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196349)

Good thing we have a well organized, international body to regulate this process! Otherwise shit like this article would be happening all the time.

OH SHI...

time for .... (1)

JBG667 (690404) | more than 5 years ago | (#26196459)

          ICANN.change.org?

Re:time for .... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26200321)

'ICANN.change' unless you are advocating adding a subsection to an existing domain(change.org). I understand that you are attempting a joke, but you could illustrate a bit less of your ignorance while making it.

The post doesn't make sense (2, Informative)

belmolis (702863) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197023)

Am I the only person who noticed that the sentence:

The initial criticism is that John Levine sent a note to a policy mailing list and summarized the concerns raised as ranging from

is nonsensical? The criticism is not that John Levine sent a note. Rather, John Levine sent a note summarizing the US government's criticism. I don't care about fine points of prescriptive grammar, but it would be nice if posts made sense.

I know! (1)

Tubal-Cain (1289912) | more than 5 years ago | (#26197125)

what they'll do with all the extra money since they are a non-profit.

1. Allow creation of generic TLDs that are very lucrative for you.
2. ???
3. Not Profit!

Non-profit not the same as perpetually bankrupt (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26197537)

>>what they'll do with all the extra money since they are a non-profit.

Why do so many people think a non-profit means having no money? I've been on the boards of a few non-profit and charitable organizations and I get really annoyed with those who think these orgs should operate on a shoestring. There's nothing wrong with having a positive bank balance and having the ability to pay for things within the org's mandate.

Non-profit just means that money is not paid out to *shareholders*. Any budget surpluses are put in the bank to be used for anything useful - like providing services.

A modest proposal (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26197555)

As an AC, I doubt this will make it through the noise, but...

Here's a simple proposal (requiring the public and the browser makers) to fix this ridiculous proposal. We decide that any top level domain name that does not have a proper ending (e.g. .com .org .edu etc or a country domain) will have an artificial, new top level domain name of .dum

Thus, to go to http://ford/ [ford]
or whatever their silly example is, you would actually have to type in
http://ford.dum/ [ford.dum]
in your browser window.

With enough public support (and browser support), we could negate any and all benefits of registering these new top level domain names, and return things back to the status quo.

Hell, if we get enough support, even google might join in, and then it would be a definite win.

US Government... (0, Troll)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 5 years ago | (#26198791)

How dare they do such a thing!

Oh, wait, they are actually opposing the ICANN's terrible idea?

And it's December, so this can't be an April fool's joke. Can someone explain what is going on here? Since when did the government actually step in to oppose bad ideas?

Working link to PDF (1)

hal9000(jr) (316943) | more than 5 years ago | (#26199381)

here ya go [listbox.com]

I want a domain (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 5 years ago | (#26200389)

Is localhost still available?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?