Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

ICANN Might Pre-Register gTLDs To Placate Critics

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the i-think-i-can dept.

The Internet 70

judgecorp writes "ICANN is to be congratulated for succeeding in expanding the Internet beyond the Latin alphabet. However, the organization is facing a harder task in extending the Internet's global top-level domains (gTLDs) — its proposal to open up the gTLD space has been plagued by controversy and delays. INCANN faces struggles with trademark owners and competing businesses — but even so it is being criticized for acting slowly (as seen in transcripts from the recent meeting in Seoul). It now seems likely the body will have a pre-registration scheme to gauge demand and placate critics by getting something moving on new gTLDs."

cancel ×

70 comments

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

So (1, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937031)

When will Slashdot move under .slashdot?

Re:So (4, Interesting)

sopssa (1498795) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937039)

For that matter, Slashdot isn't really an organization, so why is it under .org?

Nobody uses those anyways (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937247)

It isn't a .com(pany) either. It has nothing to do with .net(work related services).

Technically it should be slashdot.info but really, who cares? The gTLDs have lost their meaning and that is a good thing - it is impossible to moderate them well so it is better if people don't assume they should be given any attention.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (2, Interesting)

RiotingPacifist (1228016) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937445)

That argument is pretty weak, is it better to remove all trafic lights so people don't assume it's safe to cross a junction?

ICANN has fucked up gTLDs and everything they do seams to make it worse, now im not saying they should go around taking domains back, but if they made sure decent rules were in place then a domain name might actually mean something.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937481)

Some studies suggest that, yes actually. Uncontrolled intersections are more safe than intersections with lights.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937581)

Except when they're not and they add lights to stop people from randomly dying and it works...

The best way to know which is better is to measure. Unfortunately, this is an experiment that can end badly.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937739)

Citation needed. I can think of a dozen reasons why that conclusion is flawed.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29938221)

I can think of a dozen reasons why that conclusion is flawed.

But I can't be arsed to tell you any of them. Which is a shame really, because my ability to find flaws in research I have no knowledge of is a marvel of the modern world.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (2, Insightful)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937477)

.com stands for commercial and Slashdot is in fact a commercial site.

Re:Nobody uses those anyways (2, Insightful)

cenc (1310167) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937653)

Traded on the stock exchange under LNUX ticker symbol. How is it not a company?

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937457)

The domain name system is not a directory. Domains are administrative boundaries, no more, no less.

Re:So (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937787)

" For that matter, Slashdot isn't really an organization, so why is it under .org?" .org isn't really for organizations. it's a catch-all. The way the rfc is worded, com is for commercial organisations, net is for network infrastructure org is for things that don't fit any of these. It's just shorter than ".other".

Re:So (2, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938103)

except that .net has been used for so many things totally unrelated to network infrastructure (I myself have a .net and its just a small personal site)

Re:So (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938215)

hey me too! and the dot com was available but I liked the dot net. set me apart.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29938313)

You sir, are a idiot.

.ORG (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29954386)

I thought .org was for non-profit organizations...

Re:So (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937075)

Remember that a fully qualified domain name ends in another dot, so it would really be "slashdot.slashdot." or you could go with "slashdot.slash." or "slash.slash."

Re:So (1, Redundant)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937341)

H T T P Colon Slash Slash Slash Dot Dot Slash Dot.

Sounds like morse code. @_@

Re:So (2, Insightful)

Jeremy Erwin (2054) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937893)

I'm just surprised that colon.slashdot.org isn't being used. "idle" could have used that name,

Re:So (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 4 years ago | (#29949190)

Well considering what comes out of one's colon, that would certainly be a more appropriate subdomain for idle.

so-- ./. (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937079)

The ./. tld? I think I like it.

Re:so-- ./. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937151)

Of course, that would imply the forum leans to the right...

Re:so-- ./. (1)

Geoffrey.landis (926948) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937681)

But when you get down to the bottom of it, it tends to the left.

Re:so-- ./. (1)

itsenrique (846636) | more than 4 years ago | (#29941827)

honestly i think its a good mix of left, right, and outright crazies.

Re:so-- ./. (1)

fulldecent (598482) | more than 4 years ago | (#29951628)

aich tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot I don't mean slash dot dot org I just mean a slash and a dot

Re:So (3, Funny)

Looce (1062620) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937093)

Forget about .slashdot, .dot is where the real fun is!

"Ok, so the address is slashdot.dot - I'll spell it out for you. (attempting to add emphasis) It's http colon slash slash slashdot dot dot.
- Dot dot dot... So an ellipsis? How do I type those on a computer?
- No, I mean slashdot, as in S-L-A-S-H-D-O-T, then a dot, then dot spelled out.
- Oh! Ok, thanks!"

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937307)

who the hell says a URL out loud these days anyway? "I'll email it to you," is probably the most regular thing.

Re:So (1)

Laser_iCE (1125271) | more than 4 years ago | (#29939153)

"Hey what site are you on?"

"I'm reading slashdot.dot"

Re:So (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937767)

" When will Slashdot move under .slashdot?"

http://slash.dot/ [slash.dot] has worked for a decade for those in the know.

Christian Neilson on the BOFH-net list suggested it and set it up.

Re:So (1)

rdnetto (955205) | more than 4 years ago | (#29948350)

Just tried - that link is dead

what about slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937043)

Unicode is hard! Let's forget all our troubles with a big bowl of ice cream!

Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can you (4, Insightful)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937129)

"ICANN is to be congratulated for succeeding in expanding the Internet beyond the Latin alphabet.

No it isn't.

If you think phishing and typosquatting are bad now, think of how bad it will be when people see a link that looks like logon.[pictogram of a cat sitting on a stool].bank and it redirects to logon.[pictogram of a cat sitting on a stool with its tail curled a little bit at the end].bank that's owned by Lavaturian gangsters.

Re:Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937155)

they used ASCII? even the smiley faces that map to ASCII 0, and 1 and escape character that map to ASCII 27? And what about Confucius, Buddha? they never used ascii/latin/english.

Re:Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937381)

there's no smiley face in ASCII. you may be thinking of code page 437 [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can (1)

nickspoon (1070240) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937385)

Plato was Greek, you insensitive clod!

Re:Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937497)

He was Athenian. Greeks weren't invented until much later.

Re:Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can (1)

/dev/trash (182850) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938187)

i've got a lil greek in me.

Yeah, but which one ran Linux . . . ? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937491)

I see it this way:

Plato: BeOS - Like, very deep, man. Thoughtful.

Shakespeare: Mac OS X - He was fashionable . . . big collars and all. And he just wanted to write, and did not want to be bothered with technical details.

Jesus: Let's see - The Emperor of Rome, Tiberius (Bill Gates) controlled the known world at that time. Some yokel from some hick province starts a movement that challenges the monopoly, by preaching an alternative. Tiberius hires a hatchet man, Pontius Pilate (Daryl McBride), to "take care of the problem, using fear, etc."

So, like the bumper sticker says "Jesus runs Linux."

Makes a good Halloween tail, eh?

Re:Yeah, but which one ran Linux . . . ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29938283)

I thought RMS was going for the Buddha look but I guess he could qualify as a fat Jesus.

Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937931)

Read the comments you mod. It is obviously funny, not insightful.

Domain names still can't be pictures... And being able to use non-latin won't really affect typosquatting at all. You don't accidentally hit another key and write your bank's URL in chinese alphabet instead of latin one. And if you do, it doesn't look the same so this really doesn't make phishing easier.

Either the insightful modder is a troll or (more likely) modded that as insightful as it criticizes a governmental body (Well, kind of) without actually caring to even read the comment.

I guess that this is slightly better mod than the troll mod there was earlier...

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29938247)

An American "P" and a Cyrillic character of the same letter look the same. Same with the letter "M". So, having this new gTLD open up means phishers will have domains that are like . as opposed to .com.

So I'm sure we will be getting messages saying to go to facebook., or yourbank.. This site would have a valid SSL certificate and a good phisher would make it look exactly like a plain .com site. However, there is no way to eyeball the difference on a normal box.

I'm sure that gTLDs like . and .g will be a great hit for the blackhats. Thank you, ICANN!

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29938493)

Well, call me a goofball, Slashdot is sane enough to drop extended byte chars. Saner than ICANN.

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (1)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 4 years ago | (#29942622)

you do realize that there are a LOT of non-ascii characters which look up to 100% the same as the real latin characters but have different unicode representations.

Once it's possible to do so, you can bet your ass that the first domain registered will be citibank.com (but with a Unicode 1D694, the "mathematical monospace small k". Then the phishers can send you an email saying "Please log in at citiban.com and folks will hover, check the URL, say "nope, no funny business there, that's clearly Citibank, and get phished.

Or how about slashdot.org ? The "Latin Small Letter S With Dot Below" won't look all that different when it's underlined!

Any browser I use will have IDN completely disabled if at all possible, and anyone else in an English locale would do well to do the same. Don't blame me, blame the scammers and phishers.

Fortunately for you, on preview i found out Slashdot's filter blocks the unicode characters, so you can't see the intended effect--I had to fake it. But try it yourself. It's amazing how many duplicate or near-duplicate characters there are in Unicode.

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (1)

ekhben (628371) | more than 4 years ago | (#29946066)

Fear, doom and gloom.

Unfounded [icann.org] fear, doom and gloom, for the most part.

Homoglyphs are not a problem that somehow escaped the attention of the tens of thousands of people whose work contributes indirectly to ICANN. Top level domain registries are required to use a single script per domain, so you can't register a Greek and Latin 'A' in the same label. Mathematical symbols, including 1D694, are never allowed.

Multiple representations of the same character are already taken care of in the IDN ToASCII() operation; they are case-folded, order of accents is fixed, and composed and decomposed variants map to the same result.

There's been so much attention given to it, at this stage, that the riskiest form of domain name is the plain old ASCII domain name. We are on sIashdot.org. No, wait, s1ashdot.org. Or slashdot.org. (Your font may show these distinctly; mine shows upper-i quite distinctly but one and lower-l are nearly indistinguishable).

You're also always going to be susceptible to tricks like slashdot.org--comments.pl.sid.142242.op.Reply.threshold.0.example.org, depending on how switched on you are at the time. IDNs don't alter the potential for that at all. You're vulnerable to CSS fonts specifying a custom font file in which "example.org" renders as "citibank.com". And you're still vulnerable to a Kaminsky DNS attack, since DNSSEC is not enabled at the root, and many resolvers don't error on missing signatures in any case. Again, IDN won't alter that condition.

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (1)

danielsfca2 (696792) | more than 4 years ago | (#29947926)

Thanks for the insightful reply. I didn't know about most of what you said and I appreciate the information.

Multiple representations of the same character are already taken care of in the IDN ToASCII() operation; they are case-folded, order of accents is fixed, and composed and decomposed variants map to the same result.

I don't understand that part, but it's clear that you know what you're talking about so I assume it's a valid point ;)

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29949406)

No, he's just handwaving. He's pretty good at it, but not good enough.

Re:Insightful??? It's funny, mods! (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#29966484)

Domain names still can't be pictures...

Nobody said they could. Having the first four letters (or characters) the same is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for words to be synonyms.

Re:Plato,Jesus and Shakespeare used Ascii. So can (3, Informative)

Miamicanes (730264) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938543)

> "ICANN is to be congratulated for succeeding in expanding the Internet beyond the Latin alphabet.

The problem isn't that ICANN expanded "the Internet" beyond the Latin Alphabet (or at least the subset enshrined in ASCII's alphanumeric characters plus hyphen)... the problem is the collateral damage it caused, and continues to cause, because they did the equivalent of dumping a freeway interchange in the middle of an already-thriving residential neighborhood.

ICANN (possibly with IETF) needs to do three things:

1) Work with IETF to extend DNS so that TLD registrars can define a specific subset of UTF-8 that's valid for its subdomains. By definition, .com/.net/.org should be forever restricted to the historical [A-Za-z0-9\-] subset to put an end to homograph phishing. In other words, no TLD could indiscriminately include everything from legacy-ASCII to Klingon, Runes, and ancient Egyptian. They'd have to pick the characters used to write a single real language and stick with it.

2) Require that TLD character-validity rules be fully normalized against characters between 0x30 and 0x7f. In other words, if there's a letter in the language's unicode codepage that looks just like ASCII 'i', they can allow ASCII 'i', or the language's own version of 'i' with its own UTF-8 value, but NOT both. The choice of which 'a-zA-Z' to use would largely depend upon which value gets generated from a keypress by a keyboard in the target country.

3) Create new TLDs for writing systems used in more than one country, by at least 50 million people... preferably, short and understandable to anyone in a country that uses that writing system. So, Chinese might get .{zhong} or .{zhongwen} (but the PRC itself's country TLD might be .{zhongguo}), Cyrillic might sensibly get the characters that resemble .NHT (backwards 'N') which apparently is the abbreviation for "Int" in Russian, Ukranian, Serbian, and probably most other languages using Cyrillic, etc, and conveniently looks vaguely like ".NET" to everyone else (but the backwards-N would ensure only a complete idiot could think it really WAS .net). Ditto for Arabic. Languages almost synonymous with a single country (Hebrew, Greek, Japanese, Korean, etc) or spoken by fewer than 50 million real people in daily business wouldn't get their own TLDs... but their countries would get a new country TLD in the writing system (along with their old 2-letter TLD).

The point is, the way internationalization has been rolled out so far has created a worldwide party for fraud and phishing via homograph attacks. An end needs to be put to it NOW. If someone has an existing IDNS name that would be invalidated by the new rules (say, {nurren}.com), they'd get first chance at it in the new .{zhong} TLD (nurren}.{zhong}). If there were two or more existing .com|.net|.org domains that clashed (say, {nurren}.com and {nurren}.net), they'd have to share the TLD and settle for distinct subdomains of it, like {something}.{nurren}.{zhong} and {somethingdifferent}.{nurren}.{zhong}.

Wow (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937277)

How many translations of "goat.se" are there?

Don't forget the 40 who are waiting from year 2000 (3, Interesting)

karl.auerbach (157250) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937391)

There are 40 applicants who paid ICANN $50,000 each in year 2000 who ICANN has strung along all these years, neither granting nor denying. These include IOD's application for .web.

ICANN needs to deal with this leftover business from 9 years ago.

Re:Don't forget the 40 who are waiting from year 2 (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937901)

Thank you for bringing this up Karl; right now there's a certain Euphoria about IDN's and tons of people who didn't do any work on them are patting themselves on the back: it's newsworthy; people come up to me on the street and tell me the news.

And per AVC's suggestion they think maybe they can get started on new "g"tld apps, another source of institutional euphoria. I suggested long ago to him to organize a tld-apps "union".

I'm not sure anything short of a lawsuit would awaken the memory of the ICANN 2000 TLD apps, to say nothing of Postels list of tlds that IANA had noticed in 1997.

But who'd want to fund that kind of action? Seems they'd rather just pay again. Class action?

The .xxx reconsideration should be out any day. Fleming says the judges will say "hey the bylaws let them act like assholes and they acted like assholes".

Re:Don't forget the 40 who are waiting from year 2 (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938039)

RT @Techno_Cat http://is.gd/4JAAj [is.gd] "There are 40 applicants who paid
#ICANN $50,000 each" Mike Roberts said there were applicants the U.S. Government denied.

Re:Don't forget the 40 who are waiting from year 2 (1)

elronxenu (117773) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938445)

Deny them all and problem solved!

Who will rid me of this troublesome gTLD madness?

html in farsi (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937441)

Can I write my html and javascript in farsi now?

Minimize trademark litigation: Auto-registration. (3, Interesting)

MoralHazard (447833) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937509)

Any existing 2nd-level domain registrant automatically gets assigned a new TLD equivalent to the current 2nd-level name minus the TLD suffix. Collision priority scheme is .edu, then .com, then .org and .net, then .gov, and finally .mil. Ignores ccTLDs.

First, take care of the .edu sites: Automatically register a new TLD for each registered .edu name, such the that new TLD is the 2nd-level part of the existing .edu name. For example, Harvard U. currently owns 'harvard.edu.', so they would automatically receive the new 'harvard.' TLD.

Second, it seems reasonable to assume that the .com names have higher visibility than the .net/.org names, but not quite as over-riding as the grant to the existing .edu holders. Autoregister the new TLD and give it to the .com holder, but allow a weighted bidding process if the current .net or .org holder wants to try to buy the rights: During some designated 6-month period before open TLD registration starts, the .org/.net holder puts a bid of X dolllars in trust, and the .com holder has 60 days to match 20% of X (single-round bid, weighted at 0.2). That weighting is pretty arbitrary--it doesn't really matter what the actual weight is.

Third, whatever's left in the TLD space gets assigned to .gov and .mil names, on the same basis as .edu.

It's not perfect--it totally ignores ccTLDs, and the weighting is arbitrary, and who am I to say that a .com name is more of a claim on the new TLD than a .net/.org name?

But do you think an unqualified, disorganized "land rush" would be somehow better? At least this way, you're limiting the number of trademark/squatting cases that have to be litigated.

Re:Minimize trademark litigation: Auto-registratio (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937621)

It is very important that the TLD name space is not available to end users (neither individuals nor corporations). That would remove all administrative diversity from the domain name space. When you register a domain, not only do you choose a string of characters, you also choose a business partner: The registry. There is only one TLD registry: ICANN. That is an instant monopoly and should not become part of daily business.

To maintain choice, TLDs should be assigned to registries only and registries (as well as any affiliated company or individual) should be forbidden to use domains under the TLD(s) for anything unrelated to the registration services. Registries should have to operate name servers on every continent and have sufficient name resolution capacity.

Re:Minimize trademark litigation: Auto-registratio (1)

Rich0 (548339) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937877)

I don't get the point of having a new gTLD if it just ends up being a perfect replica of existing TLDs. Why do we need harvard.cool when we already have harvard.edu?

If anything there should be an outright ban on owning the same name in more than one TLD.

It just seems like another way to get everybody with a domain name to fork over a chunk of change to get another one.

Re:Minimize trademark litigation: Auto-registratio (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937989)

"Any existing 2nd-level domain registrant automatically gets assigned a new TLD equivalent to the current 2nd-level name minus the TLD suffix. Collision priority scheme is .edu, then .com, then .org and .net, then .gov, and finally .mil. Ignores ccTLDs."

The "move the dot to the left one" argument came up in 1997. I liked it. Course, I suggested it.

Having to pick a "winner" from com/net/org/edu etc means win-lose. Much better I think would be for them to run it in a cooperative manner. Recall that originally the Internic was run as an NSF cooperative agreement between three companies: GA, NSI and AT&T. I think consumers would feel better knowing there are multiple companies than any one outfit. Plus it's one-one.

Then you only have the problem if having 150 million tlds. ICANN will probably say there are "issues" and somebody with a DJBDNS box supporting this will no doubt shortly after echo "what issues?".

Re:Minimize trademark litigation: Auto-registratio (1)

LynnwoodRooster (966895) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938565)

And what if Harvard is a legally registered trademark in a foreign country, not owned by Harvard University? Shouldn't the TLD in that foreign language go to the trademark owner of the country that natively speaks the foreign language?

Re:Minimize trademark litigation: Auto-registratio (1)

zoloto (586738) | more than 4 years ago | (#29939409)

Then why bother having different TLD's? If Harvard has the .edu and other FQDNs, why do we even bother having multiple? It's not like slashdot.edu matters because that school of thought is at the dot org already. How many white houses are there (ok, stop with teh porn site references right now...)? Or cia? or microsofts?

Why don't we get rid of the TLD all together and just type in http://microsoft/ and be done with it?

Helps Squatters, No One Else (5, Insightful)

Killer Eye (3711) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937677)

Every time something new is created, the squatters make millions, and everyone else has headaches. Does that not sum up ICANN's contributions in the last decade?

Re:Helps Squatters, No One Else (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29937909)

Internet is getting old and dying, like any ~20 year 'on the market' technology, that's why it's a good idea to sell it piece by piece for maximum profit until the Outernet is launched in which case it becomes obsolete.
This 'localization' of domain-names is just a clever end-game ploy to have everyone make heavy investments and then handing over the keys and wrench to the new investors while moving on to the new net.

Oh yeah, Outernet will be launched on May 14 2011. Say goodbye to TLD's and enjoy our new unlimited 3P* service for a wider experience!

*(Pay-Per-Peer)

Re:Helps Squatters, No One Else (1)

rs79 (71822) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938005)

"Every time something new is created, the squatters make millions, and everyone else has headaches. Does that not sum up ICANN's contributions in the last decade?"

That makes little or no sense. ICANN hasn't *done* *anything*. They've say on their hands for a decade when they were formed to, and told by the US government that formed them to make new tlds.

Apart from some truly lame tlds burped up in 2000 (the enormously popular .museum and .coop and others, which haven't even broken even yet) there have been no new tlds since 1986. So, respectfully, WTF are you on about?

Re:Helps Squatters, No One Else (1)

elronxenu (117773) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938607)

  • Lame TLDs (.museum, .coop, .jobs etc)
  • The domain tasting debacle
  • The UDRP
  • Allowing VeriSign to ride roughshod all over the DNS with their wildcard entry "Site Finder"
  • Lack of openness and insufficient public participation

Some of these problems were the result of ICANN's actions; some were caused by ICANN doing nothing when it should have acted. The GF's point is valid; the DNS is only good for squatters and registrars and registries; what good will more gTLDs do?

What is the point? (2, Insightful)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 4 years ago | (#29937753)

All new TLDs are immediately filled by the same old names.

If they created a new TLD of .whateveryoulike then you can be sure that all the corporate big names would fill in their names - Microsoft, Sears, Exxon or whoever. After them would come all the domain grabbers who would sit on anything of interest and offer it for "only $499".

It needs to be ensured that this does not just become another land-grab by multiple registrars, like last times...

Re:What is the point? (1)

Duncan3 (10537) | more than 4 years ago | (#29938583)

All this has EVER been is a way to extort more yearly fees from every corporation on the planet.

That's what our economy is based on now. It is well known to be the best way to make money, since you don't have to do anything in return. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_seeking [wikipedia.org]

Think of it as Mafia 2.0.

Yeah, hurry up (1)

damn_registrars (1103043) | more than 4 years ago | (#29939289)

I can't wait for the next profitable action from ICANN that will improve spamming opportunities to take effect. Really, the current gTLDs are far too well regulated - we need something wide open so that domains are not traceable or accountable to anyone at all.

when is ICANN going to spank China? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#29946946)

Most Chinese registrars totally ignore the rules for registrars. When will there be some enforcement there?

Until then, I wish the Internet would blacklist Chinese IPs. I know the Net helps a little to spread freedom there, but they are out of control. Ask a sys admin about how often their systems are attacked by Chinese IPs? Or ask the person who works the abuse@ how much spam comes out of or links to Chinese addresses.

Check for New 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>