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!

FSF Proposes .gnu TLD To ICANN

CmdrTaco posted more than 14 years ago | from the proposition-for-ya dept.

The Internet 326

n3rd writes "It looks like the Free Software Foundation would like a .gnu TLD (Top Level Domain) in order to 'expand the name space, particularly for individuals and software developers who cannot find the name they want from .com, .net or .org'. If additional TLDs are going to be added, shouldn't they be more 'generic' so everyone can make use of them, not just the OSS community?" No. I want the TLD "Dot". Please? With Sugar on Top?

cancel ×


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

How long...? (4)

HerrNewton (39310) | more than 14 years ago | (#938920)

Will this take to happen. Seriously. People have been badmittoning ideas for new TLDs around for at least 5 years. I think we really need to see .sex or .xxx before we see .gnu, though I do admit it would be cool for prestige.


Hmmmm.... (3)

zorgon (66258) | more than 14 years ago | (#938925)

.gnu, .bsd, .lnx ... ???

Naw, don't think so. We need unifying domains, not ones to split 'us' up more -- that only suits the purposes of the direct marketroid collective. This is a dumb idea. Sorry, .rms ;)

WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?

Do we need a TLD for each language/environment? (1)

Moose4 (182029) | more than 14 years ago | (#938926)

Why would GNU rate its own TLD? Wouldn't you then be able to have .lnx, .w9x, .unx, .aix, .os2, .dos, and a whole ton of others? Sounds kinda like they're opening a can of worms if they approve a .gnu TLD.

But what do I know. I program mainframes in COBOL.

ObFirstPost: fr1st p0st?

A joke too far (4)

phil reed (626) | more than 14 years ago | (#938987)

If Gnu gets that far into the mainstream, I predict massive confusion.

"Go to"

"Did you say .new?"

"No, .gnu."



Re:How long...? (1)

TheNecromancer (179644) | more than 14 years ago | (#938992)

I think we really need to see .sex or .xxx

How can I see sex when I don't even know what it is??

TLD's are a batardified anyways... why not? (3)

Paradox (13555) | more than 14 years ago | (#938995)

It's not like the current TLD's are respected. Lots of .coms don't sell anything, and lots of .orgs aren't really organizations, and lots of .nets are just people who couldn't find the name they wanted in .com!

What to do? Add more TLDs? I say why the hell not? It's not like they are anything more than cosmetic anyways these days.
- Paradox
Man of the C!!!

What's next? (1)

Defiler (1693) | more than 14 years ago | (#938998)

.NRA for those websites that are armed and dangerous? .MS for every website running IIS?
Does the FSF really think that free software, as an institution, is as important as "The entire US military", "The entire US government", "All businesses", "All educational facilities?"

Sounds cocky to me.

If Anybody Deserves a "Special Interest" Domain... (4)

Fleet Admiral Ackbar (57723) | more than 14 years ago | (#939003)

it's Stallman and the GNU Project. Plus, the "rules" for the domain could be that only Free Software can be used. It would be a good way of knowing that you are dealing with the right people, kind of like a Good Housekeeping Seal.

Imagine that you have the choice between shopping at or Amazon.gnu. Which one do you choose? What message does that send to the world at large? A good one, I'd think...

And I want .BSD (3)

Ex Machina (10710) | more than 14 years ago | (#939006)

Maybe a more generic TLD for Free Software would be better to avoid the inevitable complaining from non-GNU folks. Then again maybe we need to rethink the "very few in number" TLD approach considering

Re:fp (1)

Trebinor (156202) | more than 14 years ago | (#939007)

Damn. /c0d3 sux0rs. Try it in php. I refreshed and refreshed and refreshed, so why did there appear to be no replies?

I want a .Nat domain (1)

cOdEgUru (181536) | more than 14 years ago | (#939020)

Well said and enough. Come on moderating b@#stards, shoot me down, I aint gonna be a karma whore !!!

too narrow tld (4)

pforce (127543) | more than 14 years ago | (#939025)

Originally the TLDs existed to help sort out sites by their content.. e.g. .org's were supposed to be for non-profit organizations. This didn't quite happen, now did it? If this were the case, wouldn't go to the same place as So what good then does it do to add more domains without registration restrictions? Without these, you can be sure microsoft.gnu is going to go to the same site as right now.

Taco mentioned .dot at geekpride (4)

TheTomcat (53158) | more than 14 years ago | (#939028)

No. I want the TLD "Dot". Please? With Sugar on Top?

aych tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot dot

There's trouble.

thoughts on tld's.. (1)

pixelicious (200729) | more than 14 years ago | (#939031)

I read an article about these a day or two ago, can't remember where... A friend of mine and I were discussing it, and there are a lot of ways it could go. Movies wouldn't have to scramble for a site with their name (ie:, or (blah), etc.) It also talked a lot about the .kids domains, and how sites would have to pay extra to get a domain like this. I'm totally for that, especially if it keeps young'uns out of the bad stuff. I'd like to see a tld for personal sites, one that was cheap or even free, or free with ads, or whatever. .com was supposed to be commercial, and now it seems like it's everything. If these .tlds are used right, it could really open things up. The article I read (MAN i wish I could remember where) said that a lot of trademark owners were scared that they were going to lose their domains in other places, the way it was back in 94 or so.. So get ready to buy ebay.auct and as soon as you can! ^_^

Ralph Nader (1)

jmorse (90107) | more than 14 years ago | (#939036)

So, whatever happened to Ralph Nader's proposal for .union, .sucks, etc? Were those ever submitted?

Personally, I'd like to see .whupass, .hillbilly, and .bugware.

what about matrix (1)

pakratt (145047) | more than 14 years ago | (#939040)

I'd really like the TLD .matrix
I can imagine my new website www.myoldPOS.matrix
or for all the little kiddies www.whatisa.matrix?

and when i press my face against the frosted shower stall

way too specific (1)

shinji (34318) | more than 14 years ago | (#939042)

Like the article states it should be more generic. I mean not even all of open source would want to use that...not all Open Source in GNU license or uses GNU software. Granted most does but that seems like having a .mac or .mcs for mac and microsoft people. BLAH!

I don't even try to remeber URLs that is what bookmarks and email is for....I wouldn't care if slashdot was or anything else for that matter. I have my bookmarks linked to into my homepage so all I have to remember is one URL.

* (4)

11223 (201561) | more than 14 years ago | (#939044)

If this is the case, why don't they start with offering a name of *, for example, It'd be much easier to convince ICANN of the usefuleness of the .gnu domain if there's already a lot of * domains, and they could all be switched over immediately.

I think that the Free Software Foundation is a little late on the ball in supporting the community - they needed to have something like this years before. Unfortunately, most FSF software is done cathedral-style, and that's why Open Source is a stronger idea - because it builds a community. I can get *, but GNU has up until now made no moves towards supporting the Free Software community - which is why there isn't one.

I'll support the community that supports me, thank you. In the mean time, push for a .oss for open source software.

.GPL? (1)

kannen (98813) | more than 14 years ago | (#939056)

How about, instead of .gnu, .gpl - all licenses given out with the .gpl TLD would have to be associated with projects covered under the GPL.

However, the article stated that proposals for TLD aren't even being considered at the moment - ICANN is still trying to hash out a procedure for determining TLDs. Does anyone have any suggestions for such distribution?

.dot domain? (3)

Ron Harwood (136613) | more than 14 years ago | (#939060)

No. I want the TLD "Dot". Please? With Sugar on Top?

Why? So you can have "slash dot dot dot"? Or the domain Let's go a level further and have ....

Throw in some dashes and you have morse code!

Painful names (2)

zatz (37585) | more than 14 years ago | (#939064)

".dot" is pretty silly, but I recently saw this email address:

<> (2)

kkeller (127211) | more than 14 years ago | (#939065)

Why can't the FSF simply sell/provide namespace under instead? They don't *need* a TLD to provide namespace for those who can't find namespace in .com, .net, or .org.

Even better, the FSF will get to keep all proceeds from providing names under, instead of forking over money to a registrar for each .gnu that they would register.

(Unless FSF plans on an alternate method of administering a TLD, which clearly ICANN isn't even close to considering. Jeez, they're still considering how to consider *adding* long will it take them to consider how to consider administering the consideration of considering administration of new TLDs?)

Need some restrictions, too (1)

Requiem Aristos (152789) | more than 14 years ago | (#939068)

If you want unity, dump TLDs altogether. With all the fun copyright issues floating around, TLDs are getting rather obselete anyhow, since every company is going to go for .com, .net, and .org without bothing to notice why we have those different TLDs in the first place.

More TLDs would be useful, but only if the policies for granting them were somewhat more rigorously enforced (such as with the .edu, .mil, et cetera). It needs to be enforced that a company/organization can only register a domain name in the TLDs for which they actually fit the intended requirements.

Re:How long...? (1)

Glytch (4881) | more than 14 years ago | (#939071)

I agree. We should all have .sex as soon as possible. It's the only way to truly stimulate large-scale growth on the Internet.

Do it to it (1)

Superb0wl (205355) | more than 14 years ago | (#939073)

I say, go for it, quickly. People are already starting to abuse national TLDs, like the .tv .to and .is. I thing we really should open up a few more. I could easily deal with a .gnu address. I call dibs on hehe i can't even image the pengiun pr0n that would pop up there :)


Re:What's next? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#939074)

In my honest opinion .mil, .gov and .edu should be moved under .us. I can't see why these should exist any longer. .com should be reserved for international corporations (Such as Nike, Coca Cola etc) .org should be reserved for international non-profit organisations - Nobody seems to care about .org today.

or what about (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#939076)

.tar.gz ?

This Is Ridiculous (4)

IntelliTubbie (29947) | more than 14 years ago | (#939079)

Is RMS really so arrogant as to think ICANN will create a TLD devoted to his organization? Let's be real: GNU is a brand, and if any other brand tried to pull this kind of stunt, we'd be screaming bloody murder about the Internet succumbing to private interests. Can you imagine the outrage if someone proposed .msft? .att? .sun?

So I say: .gnu -- not in a million years.

Since this is a "top" level domain (2)

Benjamin Shniper (24107) | more than 14 years ago | (#939088)

Since this is a "top" level domain, and should be inclusive, I'd recomend a better domain listing would be .gpl, under which all gnu public liscenced software could put theircode and projects, if they wanted. Linux, Slashdot's code, OpenGL for Java, and all the various projects could go there. But maybe that's not enough. Perhaps it should be inclusive enough for all free-code free-software products, like bsd, apache, mozilla, and gnu software.



Ex Machina (10710) | more than 14 years ago | (#939091)


Microsoft.gnu? (2)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 14 years ago | (#939096)

What if somebody who is NOT very OSS-freindly wants to register a .gnu domain? Given that it is now SOP to register a domain in .com,.org, and .net, what will prevent Microsoft from registering microsoft.gnu?

Unless the control of registration in the .gnu domain is turned over to the FSF, I see no advantage to this. If control is turned over to the FSF, many people will cry fowl. You just cannot win (Thermodynamics, Law 1)

exactly (1)

luxor (65921) | more than 14 years ago | (#939097)

eliminate ICANN. allow any and all TLDs.

This is just a bit premature... (3)

CMiYC (6473) | more than 14 years ago | (#939103)

"ICANN is not considering TLD proposals.... (We) are still considering the policies for considering them," Dyson said in an email message to Wired News.

As the article states, ICANN is not really accepting proposals for new TLDs. They are still developing policies for considering them. So although new TLDs like .gnu or .kids might sound like a good idea... its going to be a while before they even CONSIDER them....


CmdrTaco's Obfuscated URL challenge (1)

Lord Kano (13027) | more than 14 years ago | (#939105)

I can see where this is headed. Imagine this URL to get your daily geek fix. SlashIndex.html.gnu


Re:Painful names (1)

chaobell (167146) | more than 14 years ago | (#939108)

One of these days, when I have money again, I am going to register something like just so I can have the hardest e-mail address in the world to give out over the phone. ^_^

I want the .tld TLD. (3)

Shoeboy (16224) | more than 14 years ago | (#939119)

Then I can register hostname.domain.tld
Yeah, I know it isn't funny. Go away.

timeframe? (3)

Superb0wl (205355) | more than 14 years ago | (#939123)

I was wondering what the word "Beaurocracy" meant when one of my co-workers mentioned it today, so i looked it up. here's a quote:
"ICANN is not considering TLD proposals.... (We) are still considering the policies for considering them," Dyson said in an email message to Wired News.


TLD's SUCK! (3)

Spazmoid (75087) | more than 14 years ago | (#939126)

I have said this before, and I will say it again, no TLD structure will work, unless those with authority over the TLD's and registration processes effectively verify that each registrant is using the TLD per it's definition.

As it stands, the second they open up any new TLD's major corporations and domain squatters will grab up just about everything that is available.

The definations for TLD's were good, but they were never adhered too, and currently I don't see any change to that.

The whole system should now be ripped out, because as with anything else, it has become greedy mongering for www.mycorporation.everything.

The tld's imposed organization ad structure that made sense, but no one had sense enough to stick with it. Granted, that cant really be blamed on any one person or organization as nobody forsaw the explosive persoronl and corporate growth of the internet untill it was already too late. Now it has grown so large that nothing at all is going to be done about TLD misuse ever, as anyone with money will feed their congressperson to oppose it.

Gotta love corporate america. []

We should allow ANY TLD. (4)

mattdm (1931) | more than 14 years ago | (#939128)

There is NO technical reason not to allow ANY top-level domain. This would ease the "cybersquatting" issue (there are some cases where that's actually a legitimate complaint) and, interpretted in a rational way, would reduce the trademark silliness.

So why isn't this even being considered? As far as I can tell, it's because big companies want to be guaranteed that they can get the second-level domain corresponding to their trademarks under ALL existing TLDs. This is ridiculous, and totally unlike the way trademarks act in the real world.

(If I have a trademark on the word "Foo" for my brand of widgets, I can't stop you from using that trademark for an entirely different kind of product, and I certainly can't stop you from using it in conversation, or as a nickname, etc.)

Increasingly, it seems that big-money interests see the digital age as a chance to extend their (government-given) intellectual property rights much much farther than they've ever been before -- taking more and more rights away from the individual.

So sure, allow a .gnu TLD. Allow .cocacola and .microsoft and .foo and .sucks and .whateverelse.


more problems would be created (1)

Calimus (43046) | more than 14 years ago | (#939130)

Mainly, we all know there is a large enough problem with Cyber-Squatting. Adding another TLD would be like adding another log to the fire. At the same time, are there enough TLD's still left out there to go around for much longer? More TLD's will be added in the future I'm sure, but something like .gnu as great as it sounds, would more likely become a target of ridicule, or an arguing point for those that want TLD's added like .MS or .BSD.

Maybe TLD's like .FND (Foundation), .COL (Collection) or .HAB (Habitat). Something like that is more the direction TLD's should take. Then again, who the hell knows what NSI will do.

Re:Pronunciation - G'New or just New? (1)

11223 (201561) | more than 14 years ago | (#939131)

The FSF mandates that to avoid horrable confusion, one should always pronounce the G, as in Guh-New.

We need watchfolks so wont disapt (1)

gfoyle (103123) | more than 14 years ago | (#939134)

We need to return meaning to TLDs!

Congress...., uhmm, I mean ... The U.N. should create an organization that is in charge of making sure each domin under a TLD meet the criteria set for it. I mean it would suck big time to go to and actually find a CTW approved site.

Re:A joke too far (1)

AndyChrist (161262) | more than 14 years ago | (#939136)

Do you actually pronounce ".edu"?

Re:Need some restrictions, too (2)

mattdm (1931) | more than 14 years ago | (#939141)

TLDs representing the 40-some established classes of goods and services would be a start.


Re:A joke too far (1)

finkployd (12902) | more than 14 years ago | (#939145)

Like this:
ed do (only with no break between the two)



The Solution: Allow ***ALL*** TLDs. (5)

Anonymous Coward | more than 14 years ago | (#939147)


Allow anything to be used as a TLD.

HOWEVER, still require registrations to consist of domain name + TLD. i.e., you must still sumbit both parts to constitute a single registration application. The TLD itself cannot be registered to anyone. and remains open for anyone to use.

This would END squatting because it would be impossible for Microsoft, etc. to register all forms of Microsoft.* as doing so would require infinite money.

This also allows same named entities to coexist. Apple Records can have apple.records. Apple computer can have apple.computers. A farmer in WA can have apple.farms. While another company can have foster.farms.

Unownable TLDs also ENDS the "domain brokering" business because specific domains cease to possess any value. If you have,, and, you can demand high $$$ from any foo entities. With infinite TLDs, there's always an alternative choice.

How to implement this from a tech POV? Use the first letter of the TLD to divide up the TLDs among the root servers to balance the load. Subdivide for common letters.

Will ICANN do this? Heck no. Bidding wars over limited domains generates big $$$. And trademark holders like the idea of "buying up all variations of our name so no one else can use it". So between the $$$ and politics, I suppose this sensible suggestion will never happen.

Re:Since this is a "top" level domain (1)

Ded Bob (67043) | more than 14 years ago | (#939149)

You mean like .oss?

Re:This Is Ridiculous (2)

Foogle (35117) | more than 14 years ago | (#939152)

I agree wholeheartedly. RMS will try to sell this on the basis that the GNU project contains many sub-projects, with many authors, but the point is the same: Free Software is the movement, not GNU. GNU doesn't deserve the TLD, but maybe there should be a .oss.


"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

In the unlikely event that this happens ... (5)

IntelliTubbie (29947) | more than 14 years ago | (#939155)

I want the following domains:
  • brandspankin.gnu
  • out-with-the-old-and-in-with-the.gnu
  • spiro-a.gnu

Re:A joke too far (1)

lambda (4236) | more than 14 years ago | (#939156)

It's pronounced g-nu, with two syllables.

Re:TLD's SUCK! (1)

blameless (203912) | more than 14 years ago | (#939157)

The problem, as I see it, is that no matter what, or how many, TLD's we add, they will get gobbled up by the big players, leaving us right where we are now.

remember when... (1)

thinkpol (51932) | more than 14 years ago | (#939158)

...the internet wasn't controlled by corporations and was a tool for universities to better communicate?

i don't know if al gore's going to approve the .gnu TLD..


Re:thoughts on tld's.. (1)

Ded Bob (67043) | more than 14 years ago | (#939166)

I have been impressed with Sony. They tend to do something like I can't remember the exact URL, but you get the general idea. The benefit for doing it this way would be that it also promotes the company that published the film. I am surprised they don't all do it.

First they got .gnu. Next, .msn Soon .sun followed (1)

Pac (9516) | more than 14 years ago | (#939168)

And then the whole TLD idea went to hell. With every other public entity requesting their own
TLD, the public was left to deal with an more and more confusing url namespace. Not to mention the epic lawsuits for names that for a time captured the media imagination.

After a year or two, the routers came to crawl, the name servers exploded under the increasing complexity and the whole internet idea was sent to rest in the same place public awareness keeps the ham radio and the pigeon carriers.

Re:A joke too far (1)

11223 (201561) | more than 14 years ago | (#939171)

It's amazing how many people will call it eeh-dee-you. The proper pronunciation is ed-jyou.

Re:If Anybody Deserves a "Special Interest" Domain (2)

Foogle (35117) | more than 14 years ago | (#939172)

Rules schmules. No rules are actually applied to domain names, they're simply there as a useful way for web-surfers to find what they're looking for. You'll notice that this is still, although .com works too. This is not enforced now, and it would not be for .gnu either.


"You can't shake the Devil's hand and say you're only kidding."

Re:A joke too far (1)

gwalla (130286) | more than 14 years ago | (#939174)

edyoo or eddoo

Zardoz has spoken!

FSF should know better (4)

The Big Bopper (150305) | more than 14 years ago | (#939176)

Really what they should do is provide hostname entries under or rather than cluttering up namespace with yet another TLD. There is no need for a .gnu TLD, and the FSF is really showing some audacity to think that they deserve one.

We need more generic TLDs (1)

Jen_nifer (13609) | more than 14 years ago | (#939178)

As it's been previously stated the original TLDs have not been exclusively used for what they were intially intended, why would anyone assume that any future TLDs would be different.?

I still like the idea of a .kid or .kids for a TLD though, but that would be a hell of a battle to set the rules and maintain them. It would be like a globe-wide PTA meeting!

Realistically new TLDs should be something that businesses think appropriate to associate with their business. That's why some of the Country level TLDs are being bastardized. Definitely a .xxx or .sex, maybe a .web. Let's not forget TLDs that might appeal to those outside of North America as well! These are all based on the English language. I'm no linguist but I'm sure there are quite a few possible TLDs that the rest of the world would like to see as well.

Re:This Is Ridiculous (1)

Xerithane (13482) | more than 14 years ago | (#939180)

I really do think RMS is so arrogant, but I haven't really had too many one on one conversations with him (only once did we speak)
I would much prefer see an open source or non-profit domain, that actually gets upheld. I'd love to have myproject.oss or mywebsite.osw (open source software, open source website) []

Slightly OT (1)

blameless (203912) | more than 14 years ago | (#939181)

What ever happened with this story [] ?

Was it just a bluff? A hoax?

Re:Taco mentioned .dot at geekpride (2)

puddles (147314) | more than 14 years ago | (#939182)

it gets worse when your subnet is named "dot" or "slash" like

fragmentary (1)

Kyobu (12511) | more than 14 years ago | (#939183)

I agree with everyone that namespace is polluted, but this is clearly not a good solution to the problem. The restrictiveness of .gnu would divide the FS/OSS community, and would not make anything easier. There don't seem to be any problems in this paarticular field right now: everything fits reasonably well in .org, .net, or .com. If people really think a new TLD is necessary, perhaps one for software in general is a better idea.

Re:This Is Ridiculous (1)

shren (134692) | more than 14 years ago | (#939184)

It *is* a bit rediculous. Yet, I can't help but feel there should be more top level domains than there are now. Why shouldn't a large commercial entity be able to get it's own top level domain?

Consider this process. To apply for a new top level domain, you give 1000 pages that would be getting new DNS names under the new top level domain. The TLD is created.

Then, once a month, you audit to see if there are still 1000 pages using it. Or maybe it goes up a couple pages every month - maybe after the third month 1150 pages have to be using it.

I think if you've got a list of people who want the top level domain, then why not make it?

Re:A joke too far (2)

aat (106366) | more than 14 years ago | (#939185)

This problem could easily be taken care of once versions of BIND (and other name servers) which support DNAME become readily available. For those of you who haven't heard of it, a DNAME is similar to a CNAME, except that it works for an entire domain. I.e. .new could be a DNAME for .gnu so that would be in a way a CNAME for

My $.02


most needed TLD (4)

wishus (174405) | more than 14 years ago | (#939186)

The most needed TLD right now is .alt

that way all the crazy stuff that's not good for "normal healthy americans" can hang out there unmolested.

on top of that we need a law saying you can't sue someone over their .alt domain.


Not OSS (1)

Angst Badger (8636) | more than 14 years ago | (#939187)

If additional TLDs are going to be added, shouldn't they be more 'generic' so everyone can make use of them, not just the OSS community?

I know this is just nitpicking, but if I had to guess, I'd say that RMS wasn't thinking of the OSS community, since he isn't part of it. Free Software, as Stallman defines it, involves a much more specific definition than Open Source(tm).

Re:Do we need a TLD for each language/environment? (2)

finkployd (12902) | more than 14 years ago | (#939188)

But what do I know. I program mainframes in COBOL.

I want to see .390 TLD

But what do I know, I program mainframes in assembler (and C) :)


Re:Pronunciation - G'New or just New? (1)

barracg8 (61682) | more than 14 years ago | (#939189)

I think the pronunciation is like the animal of the same name - more like new.

Also... weren't you /not/ supposed to have the acronym within it's own definition?

It's what is called a 'recursive acronym'. To quote Stallman:

The name GNU was chosen following a hacker tradition, as a recursive acronym for "GNU's Not Unix."

oh, and your link doesn't work for me. Try this one [] .


Re:Microsoft.gnu? (1)

11223 (201561) | more than 14 years ago | (#939190)

You got that wrong. You can't win is the first law of thermogoddamnics, not thermodynamics. You can't break even is the second law of thermogoddamnics.

How about having *no* TLD (1)

dolanh (64212) | more than 14 years ago | (#939191)

How about just having www.slashdot?

It seems TLDs have been so abused as to be virtually worthless (except the aforementioned .edu, .gov, and .mil), why not just abandon them altogether? I imagine this would make for some interesting cybersquatting cases, but in the end it would probably just make things a lot easier on everyone (albeit perhaps messier too).

This would eliminate the prestige disparity between .com/.net/.org and all the foreign TLDs (i.e. etc) as well...

Either that or they need to take the TLD distinction seriously and expand and enforce it in such a manner.

Re:* (5)

gfoyle (103123) | more than 14 years ago | (#939192)

This is the way to keep domains meaningful (or as meaningless as the DNS guru of the SLD cares to make it). It is how things are done in the .US TLD. Volunteers came forward to handle various cities and to distrbute the domains for those municipalities. If was willing to let software developers have third level domains, I could go to and know I would get the site(s) for ssh tools. The same holds true for movies; is 10^6 times better than AND it gives fox a little publicity to boot. Too many TLDs is just asking for trouble (although I think we need more than 3).

Re:We should allow ANY TLD. (1)

axlrosen (88070) | more than 14 years ago | (#939193)

This is ridiculous, and totally unlike the way trademarks act in the real world. (If I have a trademark on the word "Foo" for my brand of widgets, I can't stop you from using that trademark for an entirely different kind of product, and I certainly can't stop you from using it in conversation, or as a nickname, etc.)

Domain names are a problem unlike any problem in the real world. If I say "Mercury" to you, you'll probably understand from context whether I'm talking about Mercury cars, Mercury Records, or Mercury Interactive (who makes software testing tools). But computers can't tell the difference. No matter how you slice it, the string "mercury" has to lead to a web site, whether that string is represented as "" or "www.mercury" or just "mercury". Allowing any TLD will just start a new cybersquatting land-grab, where everyone tries to be "www.books" or "".

(BTW leads to Mercury Technologies, some consulting company I've never heard of.)

Re:Taco mentioned .dot at geekpride (1)

SheldonYoung (25077) | more than 14 years ago | (#939194)

<i>pee colon</i>

No snickering!

Re:* (1)

T-Punkt (90023) | more than 14 years ago | (#939195)

I think that the Free Software Foundation is a little late on the ball in supporting the community

I have the feeling that they want to control the "community" with the power of their own TLD.

Re:We should allow ANY TLD. (3)

Ptolemarch (11506) | more than 14 years ago | (#939196)

Okay, so you failed to demonstrate how this would ease cybersquatting or trademark silliness, but here's why it would be a catastrophically bad idea to open up the TLDs to everyone.

If you allow anyone to register whatever TLD they want, what's the difference between that and only having one TLD? You're just moving the problem upstream a level.

But you've worsened the problem, because you can't just run to a different higher-level domain (eg taking when is taken), because there *is* no higher level.

No. The answer, instead, is to create new TLDs, and regulate them better this time (only allowing nonprofits in .org, for example).

Hehe (1)

Umbro2 (9955) | more than 14 years ago | (#939197)

My first thought was of all the poor programs that already start with gnu:

Run Spot Run

But Seriously how many TLDs are we going to propose before we see a single one? .god, .gnu, etc etc... I don't think it'll happen in my lifetime.

Re:We should allow ANY TLD. (2)

Stephen (20676) | more than 14 years ago | (#939198)

There is NO technical reason not to allow ANY top-level domain. This would ease the "cybersquatting" issue
Not really. Everyone would try and squat on www.cocacola or whatever. And you'd have the same disputes about whether such-and-such is a universal trade mark, just moved up from the second level domain to the TLD.

I want (1)

Pope (17780) | more than 14 years ago | (#939199)



Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!

for all you conspiracy theorists.. (4)

mcc (14761) | more than 14 years ago | (#939200)

It's been widely speculated that the reasons .biz and .arts and the other .vapor TLDs never came to pass is because of pressure from business groups who want to ensure the namespace becomes as small as possible to ensuring nobody infringes their copyrights/trademarks/whatever. The more new TLDs we have, the more different variations on their name Disney and the 300 other agressively defensive businesses have to register. (of course, the fact that every corporation simply registers itself in every single TLD defeats the purpose of new TLDs in the first place, but whatever.)

If you take it as given that the above paragraph is actually true, then .gnu has a pretty good chance of getting approved. After all, make a TLD in which each group must be certified as open-source, and you neatly throw out the problem of copyright disputes. I mean, orgainize nothing but free/open software and you don't have domains with copyrighted names, because all the projects are copylefted. Hence, no worries for the Men In Suits, who feel reassured by the fact the TLD isn't open to all comers. Hence, no political/monetary "pressure" on ICANN. Hence, nothing bars it, and the OSS people get a TLD.

Now, of course, you could claim that they [the Suited People] would be scared more, because free software people tend to defend their copylefted ground rather fiercely, but you'd be wrong. A .gnu TLD may result in some Etoy Vs Etoys type disputes, but in the end the fact is that there will never be a coca-cola.gnu or ford.gnu or a microsoft.gnu-- and no huge corporations feeling "threatened". (silly word to use there, i know..)

(oh, and on that last note: what if a company does _some_ open source but not _all_? Apple, as part of their Darwin project, has released code under their own APSL but has also given out [or at least is about to give out] some code *cough* *cough* EGCS enhancements *cough* as GPLed (mostly for the purpose of being integrated into an existing GPLed codebase..). Based on this, should apple get an apple.gnu TLD to map to, even though the majority of the software there is not actually GPLed?)

As for "does the FSF deserve a TLD"..? well, hell, they give them to countries, right? I honestly think that the GNU foundation has a bigger impact on geopolitics than Christmas Island [] .
Unfortunately the whole question becomes very painful when you bring up the question of What About BSD? and What About Qt/KDE? I'd like to hope any TLD made will have a more loose definition of "free" than "the GPL". [i like the LGPL better personally, but that's a flamewar for another day..].. In other words i'd just be a hell of a lot happier with .fsf than with .gnu, because .gnu implies less [and avoids the pronunciation problems mentioned in earlier threads..]

More Important...Why should we pay for TLD? (1)

dumpest (97919) | more than 14 years ago | (#939201)

What I think is more important is why should we pay for a domain name... The free software foundation should be more concerned with keeping the net accessable to everyone rather than fitting in with the status quo of "lets add another TOP LEVEL DOMAIN so that ICANN or NET SOL can collect some kind of ridiculous fee..."

No one is gonna like a .gnu domain anyway... is .vaxvms next?... how about .eniac?

Remember (1)

bguilliams (68934) | more than 14 years ago | (#939202)

TLD's do not necessarily have to be 3 letters long like .com, .net, and .org.

I want my website to be http://www.bguilliams.rocksthehousemonkey.

Sounds familiar... (1)

blameless (203912) | more than 14 years ago | (#939203)

"ICANN is not considering TLD proposals.... (We) are still considering the policies for considering them,"

I believe it was our fearless leader (Clinton, not CmdrTaco) who said it best - "Well, that depends on what the meaning of the word is is."

Will new TLDs be enforced, anyway? (1)

algae (2196) | more than 14 years ago | (#939204)

Question for those in the know: Are the new TLDs that ICANN is working on going to be enforced at all? For example, if there's a .sux domain, and people/corporations start registering subdomains for purposes other than sites about stuff that sucks, will ICANN or anyone else have the means not to grant them that domain?

In other words, are the new TLDs going to be .com/.org/.net or are they going to be .edu/.gov?

In My Opinion (3)

Amphigory (2375) | more than 14 years ago | (#939205)

I think anyone should be able to start a TLD. For a massive fee. Say a minimum of $1 Million/yr, which could be used (please don't laugh -- I mean it) to pay for internet infrastructure. Obviously, the really popular one would have to be auctioned off or something similar. A few ground rules would have to be things like "in the event of a trademark dispute, the tld is canceled forever with no refund, so make damn sure you own the trademark."


Why make a gnu TLD? (1)

BMonger (68213) | more than 14 years ago | (#939206)

Sorry... couldn't resist the minor pun. But seiously... if you make .gnu you have to make a ton more. Also .gnu if used correctly doesn't really help the majority of the world find things. How many people in this world comparitively know what gnu is in the first place. Many many people know what a commercial site is, know what an organization is, know what a network is (mildly at least), know what a government is, etc... if .gnu is added it will just lead to more confusion. It's already hard enough to remember what goes in between the www. and the .com, .org, .net, .gov. If we add .gnu there will inevitably be more TLD's to remember. In my opinion .kids or something to that effect would be beneficial (for filtering purposes (blah!)).
Another thing is that we all know that (i am gonna use microsoft for this arguement) microsoft will register Frankly I don't blame them because if we have 500 TLD's that are commonly used how can I remember which one it is that I am supposed to go to. It is much more convenient for me if they ALL go to it's just like the / thing. One goes to porn, one goes to the whitehouse. Granted it's obvious but where does whitehouse.* go to? The fewer TLD's the better.
Yes it would be "cool" to have a whole lot to choose from but on the same token it would be very, very confusing. Mainly because I'm to lazy to ever bookmark things so I just remember all the URL's in my head.

Re:Microsoft.gnu? (1)

lizrd (69275) | more than 14 years ago | (#939207)

what will prevent Microsoft from registering microsoft.gnu?

Honestly though, who would want microsoft.gnu?

The only thing that I see coming out of adding more TLDs without making any significant changes in the system is that the registration companys will sell more than 3 <insert product name>.TLDs at a time. And it'll cost anyone who wants to protect their product name that much more money each year. wow! (1)

jdwilso2 (90224) | more than 14 years ago | (#939208)

so you can tell all your friends to type: "h,t,t,p,colon,slash,slash,slashdot,dot,dot" Man!!! that'd rock man!

How long till... (1)

Knitebane (64590) | more than 14 years ago | (#939209)

.lnx .bsd .sun .win .sco .ibm .dec .amd .sux ...

Re:A joke too far (1)

11223 (201561) | more than 14 years ago | (#939210)

While the GNOME projects says it can either be guh-nome or nome, there's already a bunch of people calling it gee-nome - yuck! As for gnutella, that's gunew-tella.

a modest proposal (2)

medcalf (68293) | more than 14 years ago | (#939211)

Anyone should be able to create a TLD, if they can set up a root-level name server for that TLD, prove that they can operate that root-level name server properly, prove that they can provide a 100% reliable connection to that root-level name server, and prove that they have a reasonable potential market for that TLD. (For example, .gnu is probably too narrow for a TLD, while .oss is probably sufficiently broad.)

Each TLD owner (and there should be exactly one owner per TLD) should be required to impose (or not) and enforce restrictions on the nature of owners of domain in their TLD. For example, .com addresses should not be given out to entities not legally registered as corporations, partnerships, proprietorships or the like. This would be more likely if there were one owner per TLD, and they were legally responsible for ensuring that domains they issue conform to the guidelines under which the TLD was created.

The existing TLDs should be destroyed as meaningless, and recreated under the above guidelines. .net would still be useful if limited to organizations which exist to provide network connectivity (ISPs, telecom companies) or services (ASPs, registrars). .com probably needs to be broken into several domains, by either geography or the type of for-profit entity. .edu needs to apply to more than just post-secondary institutions, and probably needs to be broken down geographically.

The number of domains owned by a given entity should be limited.

Each legal entity capable of issuing and enforcing trademarks should have a domain within an appropriate TLD for trademarks. For example, for trademarks issued by the US Patent and Trademark Office. Then you could register, and there would be no possibility of confusion with Then, refuse to allow anyone to register domains in the .tm.* domains except for the responsible trademark office.

These changes would, collectively, greatly increase the utility of the namespace in today's environment (as opposed to the pre-commercial environment in which the in-use namespace was conceived) and reduce confusion and lawsuits (as well as cybersquatting, if the limitations on the number of domains was done well). Of course, it will never happen, since it would require a big renaming. Maybe 10 years ago it could have been done, but a second Great Renaming now is probably not possible. (2)

rasilon (18267) | more than 14 years ago | (#939212)

This is certainly not without precedent, the domain is owned just like any other .com domain but provides subdomains to other companies in much the same way that Nominet do with the official domains

When we have .nu (2)

z4ce (67861) | more than 14 years ago | (#939213)

RMS should register the "g" domain from .nu ( pretty close to TLD:)

Re:Microsoft.gnu? (1)

Kyobu (12511) | more than 14 years ago | (#939214)

Cry fowl? You mean call us chicken? Chickennn, brawk brawk? Like elementary school? Then we can't let this happen! I hated grade school!

Re:This Is Ridiculous (1)

theMAGE (51991) | more than 14 years ago | (#939215)

Atually _THIS_ is ridiculous.

Why OSS?

GNU does not deserve a TLD after 15 years of work for the community and a pity attempt to get something from the corporations does?

Wake up, fella.

You are happy because of the freedom you have with Linux or because AT&T decided to give you Plan 9?

Nah don't think so (1)

Hasues (63342) | more than 14 years ago | (#939216)

I don't feel this should be made into a TLD. This means that any orgranized group should have their own domain tld. I will state that I have no problem with it as long as every other organization, company, or cult get to make their own TLD. I mean, if I like manage exclusive escorts in the red light district, do I get a .pmp?

Re:A joke too far (1)

dolanh (64212) | more than 14 years ago | (#939219)

So how would you pronounce .xxx? Eks Eks Eks or GzuhGzuhGzuh?

(For the record I pronounce it 'edjyu', more or less)

Re:Need some restrictions, too (2)

zorgon (66258) | more than 14 years ago | (#939220)

Forgive my ignorance ... name some of these classes, this is interesting.

WWJD -- What Would Jimi Do?

Get rid of TLDs! (1)

whiteben (210475) | more than 14 years ago | (#939222)

Why bother getting in a huff about TLDs at all? Why not entirely leave the system in which domain names are mapped to IP addresses via DNS queries? Why not go to a system in which English names are mapped to domain names which are then mapped to IP addresses (or English mapped directly to IP addresses)? Imagine a hash table whos keys are English words and whos values are IP addresses. This would enormously increase the space and get rid of the ridiculous bantering about TLDs, not to mention make it a lot harder for people to cybersquat. BEN

Re:most needed TLD (1)

bags (78273) | more than 14 years ago | (#939225)

Now that's a great idea - we won't need no Napster-ripoffs without uploading support anymore!
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>