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!

Hundreds of New TLDs Coming — Question Is When

timothy posted more than 4 years ago | from the getcher-squatter-gun-ready dept.

The Internet 103

netbuzz writes "A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains could be headed for the fast track to implementation or something more akin to the back burner, depending on what ICANN makes of public comments due to close at the end of this month. At most immediate issue is whether the process of granting these new TLDs will feature a pre-registration process that proponents say is necessary to accurately gauge the depth of interest and skeptics fear as moving too fast too soon. Says one critic: 'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.'"

cancel ×

103 comments

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

This just in... (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789720)

The process could be really fast or not-so-fast! We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast. Full story at 11.

Re:This just in... (1)

davester666 (731373) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791178)

But we'll take your money now...

Re:This just in... (1)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792226)

ICANN has more domains?

Re:This just in... (1)

node 3 (115640) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792800)

The process could be really fast or not-so-fast! We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast. Full story at 11.

It's worse than that. This hemming and hawing is based on the misguided notion that we need to know how things are going to turn out before rolling it out. Nobody knew how the Internet itself would evolve. Sometimes you have to just put things out there, and let the people work it out. Even worse-case, it's not like this is going to cause the Internet to collapse, or cause a spike in road deaths or armed robberies or anything. At worst, it might mean there are even more domains that no one uses, and at best, it means a much more vibrant internet.

But really, TLD's need to go away altogether. Or at least be supplemented with a namespace that is more open. Why can't Apple have an actual .mac, or MS a .ms. Or even .apple, .microsoft, .sony, etc.? It's not like the .com means anything much more than "this is the end of the domain name" anymore anyways. And .net just means, "I was too late to buy .com", and .org just means "I don't want to sound like a business and/or I was too late for .com". .info? .biz? Lame attempts to guess at what people want. Just let them *buy* what they want. This is a *much* better way to solve something as complex as the Internet.

Re:This just in... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30794986)

Microsoft can own .ms now! All they have to do is buy Montserrat from the British
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montserrat

fatboy slim be happy (4, Funny)

ionix5891 (1228718) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789724)

slash.dot

Re:fatboy slim be happy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30789806)

slash.

Re:fatboy slim be happy (1)

impaledsunset (1337701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789938)

h t t p colon slash slash slash dot slash dot dot dot

Re:fatboy slim be happy (-1, Offtopic)

cndjs1985 (1708274) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791180)

slash.dot

Brazil has hit Haiti, sent 140 rescue workers Brazil's Defense Ministry issued a statement on the 16th, said that since the earthquake in Haiti, Brazil has hit Haiti, sent 140 rescue workers, and transported more than 80 tons of relief supplies. The communique says that since the airport traffic jams, there are three planes transporting relief supplies in the Dominican capital, Santo Domingo, Brazil, the waiting time is longer, from 16 am to arrive at the Haitian capital Port au Prince airport. The evening of 15 Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had telephoned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hopes the United States to Brazil to facilitate the rescue aircraft taking off and landing time. It is reported that in Haiti caused by the earthquake paralyzed the local government, the U.S. military took over the Port au Prince airport, air traffic control work. The United Nations since 2004, sent to the Stabilization Mission in Haiti, where the main peacekeeping force led by Brazil. Haiti, 12 pm local time a magnitude 7.3 earthquake, resulting in the capital, Port-au-a large number of houses damaged or collapsed, and led to heavy casualties. After the earthquake, the international community to lend a helping hand to assist in the rescue. http://www.zhliao.cn/ [zhliao.cn]

Re:fatboy slim be happy (1)

jocabergs (1688456) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793020)

Good god, Chinese spammers on slashdot.. sigh.. next thing you know they'll hit google.

Re:fatboy slim be happy (2, Funny)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792046)

I remember the good old days back around 1998 when people used to bitch about Slashdot using the .org TLD when they should have been a .com because they were commercial and had advertising. Now the Internet is going to be totally fucked and non-hierarchical. This plan must have been approved by the same kind of people that see no problem injecting /29 subnets into the global BGP routing tables.

Re:fatboy slim be happy (1)

welsh git (705097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793164)

mod parent up

Re:fatboy slim be happy (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793648)

My favorite URL right now: “to”.
That’s it. Enter it in your address bar, and press enter.
(In the rare occasion that it doesn’t work, you can try: “http://to.”)

But wouldn’t Fatboy Slim’s homepage be more like: /.-./.-./.-./.com.com.com....com

Unfortunately, it would be hosted on 127.0.0.1. ;)

Re:fatboy slim be happy (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793662)

P.S.: Damn you, GP poster! Now I had to create that file, only to test if it works!

Standards for Morality and Public Order (1)

smitty777 (1612557) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789786)

This should be kind of interesting to the /.ers. The 2009 Public Comment Fourm meeting minutes [icann.org] produced an interesting document called the Standards for Morality and Public Order document [icann.org] . A summary of key points:

 

Legal research was conducted in selected jurisdictions in every region of the world in order to develop standards for the implementation of a dispute process for the GNSO recommendation on morality and public order.

Sitting and former judges on international tribunals, as well as attorneys and law professors who regularly appear before them, were consulted on appropriate limitations found in the legal research that could be incorporate into workable standards.

As a result of the legal research and consultations, the four identified standards are: (i) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; (ii) incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin; (iii) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or (iv) a determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to equally generally accepted identified legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under general principles of international law
I. Introduction and background

Re:Standards for Morality and Public Order (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30789852)

So, where will that leave the Gay Nigger Association of America [goatse.fr] ?

Bluring the lines (2, Insightful)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789810)

That's just going to blur the lines between TLD, domains and subdomains.

http://sport.sport.sport/ [sport.sport.sport]
Without the protocol, I'm not going to parse that as a URL at all.

Re:Bluring the lines (3, Insightful)

Philip_the_physicist (1536015) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790142)

Agreed. IM(NS)HO, it would be better if the only gTLDs were .arpa, .tel, and .int. .eu should be deprecated as it isn't a country, and EU sites belong under eu.int. .gov and .mil should be under .us, and so probably should all the other gTLDs, except .cat (I have no idea what to do with that). For the other gTLDs, there should be the option of free transfer to the corresponding .us domain, and a ban on any further registrations of transferrals of ownership, so that they die out.

In this way, local prejudices, customs, and taboos can be respected by the registrar, without all the arguments over .xxx and so on.

Re:Bluring the lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792598)

at first i disagreed, I think there is a need for .net/.com/.org/.msg(or something for communication), etc but the i realised that these are subdomains of .int. The only thing i think you have wrong is .eu, i would have .eu/.asia, etc for the various continents/cultural blocs as there are lots of sites that are relevant to eu/asia that are more specific than global international sites. Also what is the benefit of .co.int over .com (other than the regime change killing all the non commercial .coms, etc)?

Re:Bluring the lines (1)

welsh git (705097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793294)

I'd love that to happen. And of course, making sure that .net.XX .com.XX .org.XX are only used by appropriate organisations that fit the role.

It will never happen though.

Are you from AOL or something? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792664)

You must be about the last one standing who *still* after all these years hasn't realised that the Internet != USA. Sure, I realise you think that the EU government *ought* to be properly considered as something belonging to the US, but you can't seriously expect they *are* going to give up their domains.

Your idea is half-right, though. The top-level US domains .gov, .com and .mil should be moved under the ccTLD .us, just like everyone else. Because you're not as special as you like to think.

Re:Are you from AOL or something? (1)

General Wesc (59919) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793014)

.gov and .mil should be under .us,

You must be about the last one standing who *still* after all these years hasn't realised that the Internet != USA

Looks to me like he understands it quite clearly.

Re:Bluring the lines (2, Insightful)

blackest_k (761565) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792920)

.eu has some value since its a common trade area.

I can buy from any where within the eu without being charged import duty or VAT. unlike buying from an american site or asian ect.

 

Re:Bluring the lines (1)

grantdh (72401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30794304)

Insightful???? I thought he was joking! :)

Re:Bluring the lines (1)

Mizery De Aria (554294) | more than 4 years ago | (#30796850)

except .cat (I have no idea what to do with that)

http://lol.cat/ [lol.cat]

Re:Bluring the lines (1)

thogard (43403) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790342)

I already block most new TLD in my DNS server by adding my own root zones for them. Too many of the recent TLDs are just way too full of scammers.

Re:Bluring the lines (1)

Daimanta (1140543) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790630)

On the other hand it might be helpful with links like bork.bork.bork

Re:Bluring the lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792054)

Even better (or depending on how you look at it even worse),

http://Buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo/

Re:Bluring the lines (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793694)

Wait until it’s

sport://sport@sport.sport.sport:sport/~sport/

Re:Bluring the lines (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30793798)

*puts Viking helmet on*

~ Lovely spoooort! Wonderful spooort! ~

.con (1)

Stratoukos (1446161) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789812)

Whoever registers the .con TLD will become ipso facto the king of phising...

Re:.con (1)

namgge (777284) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789848)

Whoever registers the .con TLD will become ipso facto the king of phising...

Except in France.

namgge

Le Con n'est pas un candidat (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789994)

Personally, I can't wait until .bs (Bahamas) becomes available.

I've already purchased all the .bj (Benin [www.nic.bj] ) I could afford and I'm already reselling those for a tidy profit.

Re:Le Con n'est pas un candidat (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30790140)

C'est justement des BS comme toi qui brisent tout le système DNS pour tout le monde.

Re:.con (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30789858)

.con .com .corn

with some fonts .corn (.CORN) would be more trouble.

Re:.con (1)

Tjebbe (36955) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790600)

To quote a speaker I saw on this topic; "The Internet is for (.)corn"

Re:.con (3, Insightful)

Professor_UNIX (867045) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792074)

Oh it's just not .con, they want to let you use any unicode characters in the domains so you'll essentially have characters that look exactly like ".com", but they're different unicode characters. THAT will be when the phishing gets nasty if someone slips something like that through.

This fills me with great hope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30789836)

'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.'

Opposed to the [insert comment here from someone much better versed in internet history than me] moment when DARPA became open to commercial entities?

Chaos works just fine for me, anyone else?

purpose ? (5, Insightful)

Tom (822) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789838)

To me, the major issue appears to be that ICANN doesn't have a clear vision on what the purpose of TLD is.

In the past, we had two types of TLDs: One for geographical/political designation (country TLDs) and one for organisation-type designation (.com/.net/.org/.mil/.edu).

The ones they added, and which I think everyone agrees were utterly stupid, are a mix of lobby-dumbness and content designation (.info, .pro, .aero)

What we need is a clear view on what the meaning of the TLD should be. But since we don't get that, because ICANN doesn't have a vision at all, we'll end up with a mess of crap, no matter which way they turn.

Re:purpose ? (3, Informative)

Antique Geekmeister (740220) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789912)

I'm forced to disagree with your thoughtful comment. They know quite well what the _purpose_ was, and what it can be. What they're confused about is how to make money off of it. ICANN is funed, primarily, by registrars. But the opportunity to open up new revenue by selling off additional, duplicate hostnames in multiple domains is apparently irrestible, and they seem unwilling to take responsibility for managing the dominant ".com" domain properly. So they're delegating responsibility for it, and intend to collect the revenue from the top-level domain owners.

There are technological and social reasons to want more domains, but I'm afraid they're swamped by the potential for expanding the revenue stream.

Re:purpose ? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790434)

then it still beats me why we don't have a .xxx TLD. Apart from policies demanding no porn on non-XXX domains (at risk of having it revoked) it'd make the filtering software work, and produce a lot of revenue from porn operators.

Also add another TLD for gambling/betting sites, and you'd raise a ton of money.

I guess the problem is more political - ie the looney politicians who'd say it was just the internet being a den of terror for non-christian activities, not realising that all those things are already there, just hiding all over the place.

And they need to get rid of .com, produce a .us domain, and migrate all .com owners to a .co.us (or equivalent in their country of choice) and then stop registering any new ones. Firstly, we'd stop the scramble for everyone to go for the same .com domain (ie 2 companies in different countries want the same .com domain, whereas if they have a .co.uk and a .co.us they'd be satisfied) and also you'd be able to screw the multinationals out of more money by making them buy all the .co.xx domains they do business in.

I should have gone to business school :)

Re:purpose ? (2, Insightful)

AndroSyn (89960) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791376)

What counts as porno? What is considered tame in Western culture might be considered pornographic in Saudi Arabia for example.

Re:purpose ? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793068)

I'm not sure - but I'll know it when I see it :)

Re:purpose ? (1)

dnsdude (1713006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791192)

I disagree, ICANN has a clear purpose for adding TLDs: funding. The primary reason ICANN wants to add TLDs (and sooner rather than later) is because it raises money for them. Everyone who applies for a new TLD sends a check to ICANN as their first step. It doesn't matter whether the TLD is successful long-term or not, if they have enough applicants, they can raise lots of cash. Top salaries at ICANN increased 74% in one year (http://gordoncook.net/wp/?p=274) between '06 and '07. Rod Beckstrom makes $1MM per year (sfgate:http://tr.im/KzVB ). ICANN's annual budget in '09 was $65MM, up 37% from 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may08-en.htm). These increases cannot be sustained without new sources of revenue, and the plan to add new TLDs is just that: a revenue generation system. Follow the money, folks. This has nothing to do with choice, demand, or Internet governance. This is about a pseudo-governmental organization with an insatiable appetite for money and power and little, if any, oversight, building themselves into a $100MM pork factory. What did ICANN do for *you* last year? And how much should that have cost?

Re:purpose ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792278)

$1MM

Mega Million or Millimeter? Or Mega Man?

Re:purpose ? - protecting people.. (1)

anon mouse-cow-aard (443646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791976)

I think TLD's should be used to organize fraud to make it easier to manage. We just ask all tricksters use the .con TLD. similarly, people with intent to bomb should be steered towards a .terror TLD. or perhaps a more generic .violence. Also, TLD's should be translated, so that in French the TLD is http://alqaeda.terreur/ [alqaeda.terreur] if your language setting is FR. regardless of wether the URL is .con, .fraude, .terreur, .terror, .violence, .violencia, etc... We would then have a simple means of implementing http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html [faqs.org] RFC 3514, just set the evil bit on all traffic coming from these domains.

Re:purpose ? (0, Redundant)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#30795520)

Have to agree, the meaning is quite important to designate how they should be used.
Are those COMPLETE IDIOTS still banning .XXX? It's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard of and instant filter for adminsitrators of kids stuff, schools, business's to stop (some) porn in these places instantly, very very simple but you guys here already knew that, it's these idiots which don't.

Re:purpose ? (1)

MrSnivvel (210105) | more than 4 years ago | (#30799196)

Why should TLDs have a purpose at all should be the first question. They're just arbitrary. Let there be a complete decentralization of the domain name space. It's not like names magically gain integrity by having a current address. If that were the case, .gov should be the picture of piety.

Dumb, Again (1)

omb (759389) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789862)

What are TLDs? Answer text strings in the ROOT servers DNS.

The only problem here is the registrars, who want to be able to continue to charge $20/year for next to nothing,

these are, generally the same people that charge $100/year for snake-oil CA certificates.

This con should have been stopped 10 years ago but it is another thing caught up in the US corporation+politics mess and will require a 1000 page report to do nothing.

Re:Dumb, Again (4, Insightful)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790078)

Reduce the price of maintaining a domain name, and it's only going to increase the instances of domain-squatting.

Re:Dumb, Again (0, Troll)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791114)

there is nothing wrong with domain-squatting. if you weren't smart enough to get the domain name in the first place or not quick enough to renew it (most of the time, the registrar give you first dibs with some amount of time), then so be it. i remember when starwars.com was just a "page coming soon" site, but if i'd have gotten it first to make a fansite or a reagan shrine, i think that should've been fine. it's even okay, if you know that someone else will need it for their business. they can pay up. what next? go after the ad sites that rely on people's typos?

Re:Dumb, Again (1)

welsh git (705097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793630)

there is nothing wrong with domain-squatting. if you weren't smart enough to get the domain name in the first place or not quick enough to renew it (most of the time, the registrar give you first dibs with some amount of time), then so be it.

You idiot.

what next? go after the ad sites that rely on people's typos?

er yes, dumbarse or troller.. hard to tell with some people

Re:Dumb, Again (0, Flamebait)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30794846)

troll? really?? i am fucking serious here. so, when the next platform of communication gets made(whatever it may be), you think established companies should get first dibs, even after they dismiss it as passing trend or not financially viable or whatever lameshit excuse they will use? that, sir, is idiotic. "first come, first serve" should always be the case for things of this matter.
as for typos and the sites made to benefit from them, should we coddle every internet user and have browsers automatically fix typos to the more popular sites? should these typo-domains be given to the site owners that people were trying to get to? both sound rediculous. well, at least your name's right, you fucking git!

Re:Dumb, Again (1)

welsh git (705097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30798428)

So, if you built up an exclusive brand, and someone else took your name just to benefit off your brand-awareness (even, maybe a competitor) that would be ok?

No-one has the right to use their power to muscle in on a generic or a company who legitimately have a reason for the domain, but that's not cyber-squatting, is it?

And, if you did manage to have a big online presence for your company, you'd be happy that anyone who accidentally mistypes one letter gets to my site advertising hardcore porn?

I think not.

I may be a git, but at least I'm not the idiot.

Re:Dumb, Again (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30802088)

So, if you built up an exclusive brand, and someone else took your name just to benefit off your brand-awareness (even, maybe a competitor) that would be ok?

No-one has the right to use their power to muscle in on a generic or a company who legitimately have a reason for the domain, but that's not cyber-squatting, is it?

ok. i'll play. the issue is completely grey area, but you seem to see it in black and white. first off, what if the brand name is not exclusive to the brand? secondly, who is going to prioritize the legitimacy? should walgreens, rite-aid, or any other old brick and mortar company get drugstore.com? oh, because it is a legitimate online drugstore, drugstore.com gets to live? do i get royal.com (my family name) instead of royal supplies, the site it redirects to? that is why registering domains is first come, first serve. what next, a domain name oversight committee?

And, if you did manage to have a big online presence for your company, you'd be happy that anyone who accidentally mistypes one letter gets to my site advertising hardcore porn?

I think not.

well, i might not be happy but i would not be surprised or angry towards you. i'd be mad at my marketing staff, my tech staff, and myself. then again, if i had such a large online presence, i'd have had the foresight to also get the typo domains.
i just know you have to take the bad with the good, and any altering of the way it works will only make a bigger mess. i'd love to hear what you suggest, though.

Re:Dumb, Again (1)

welsh git (705097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30809568)

ok. i'll play. the issue is completely grey area, but you seem to see it in black and white.
first off, what if the brand name is not exclusive to the brand? secondly, who is going to prioritize the legitimacy? should walgreens, rite-aid, or any other old brick and mortar company get drugstore.com? oh, because it is a legitimate online drugstore, drugstore.com gets to live? do i get royal.com (my family name) instead of royal supplies, the site it redirects to? that is why registering domains is first come, first serve. what next, a domain name oversight committee?

I never once said it was a black and white situation, though you just need to apply some common sense.

In all the cases you site, I agree with first come first served, as I said, we are talking about
cybersquatting, and none of those cases are cybersquatting.

well, i might not be happy but i would not be surprised or angry towards you. i'd be mad at my marketing staff, my tech staff, and myself.
then again, if i had such a large online presence, i'd have had the foresight to also get the typo domains.

i just know you have to take the bad with the good, and any altering of the way it works will only make a bigger mess. i'd love to hear what you suggest, though.

Fair enough if that's what you think. I personally think it stinks. And yes, I can't think of any way of altering it without making a mess.

Just lets hope that next time your kid tries to go to barneythedinosaur.com and mistypes it, she or he doesn't end up on a page promoting anal sex. Presumably, you'd just blame barney & co. for not registering myriads of typoed domains?

Re:Dumb, Again (1)

sixsixtysix (1110135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30810078)

common sense, eh? the internet has lots of bad stuff, even more than there is of good stuff. that is well known, right? i used those examples because they have to live side by side with cybersquatting. i can't see a system that allows one and not the other. as for the barney thing, i'd probably blame myself for letting my kid use the internet with either unattended guidance or unlimited access. i wouldn't blame the cable company for running kids programming on one channel and adult content on another, even if it was one channel off. granted, i was half joking about the myriad of typos, but there wouldn't really be any other way to stop it. it always comes down to the end user.

Bonanza for the domain registories (1)

physburn (1095481) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789864)

There's been no big clamour for new top level domains most of us have lived with the available ones for years. But licensing a load more TLD gives domain registories a chance to sell a lot more domains, many of them just extra names for existing sites. So registories make a lot of cash.

---

Internet Advertising [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

The original summary from the article. (2, Interesting)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789872)

The original summary reads as follows:

A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains into the Internet has reached a crossroads: The plan will either be accelerated or delayed based on public comments due at the end of January.

I'm glad that here at Slashdot, we have submitters/editors that dumb down the original summaries for us.

Re:The original summary from the article. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30791752)

I'm glad that here at Slashdot, we have submitters/editors that dumb down the original summaries for us.

Luckily there is a public comment period in the form of the Firehose.
And anything that passes that public comment period gets subjected to a 2nd round of public comments.

Cyber Squatters (1)

lalena (1221394) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789886)

Article list .food as an example of a TLD that someone might want to register.
What if they get rid of the cyber squatters that own food.net and food.org - but where's the profit in that.

Re:Cyber Squatters (1)

stephanruby (542433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790176)

"Aug-14-2007: Food.net [food.net] is not for sale and has not been for sale. Thank you for visiting. "

Those damn open source zealouts, it doesn't seem like they're budging.

Re:Cyber Squatters (1)

welsh git (705097) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793658)

I hate the cyber squatters and typo-squatters, but I don't think a generic word like food can be considered squatting.

Remember, domains can be used for far more than www, so the lack of a web page means nothing.

I would like to say that they shouldn't be able to have .net because they are not an ISP, but unfortunately, that rule has long since died.

Re:Cyber Squatters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30790224)

Not sure why they are considered cybersquatters. If food.net was available anyone with half a brain cell would register it, regardless of developement ambition. Cnet owns the worlds best domains and does little more than redirect them and yet they are let off the hook.

The question is when? (1)

rossdee (243626) | more than 4 years ago | (#30789900)

Probably after Dec 21, 2012

Dot PR (1)

Elektroschock (659467) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790050)

The old baltic kingdom of Prussia [youtube.com] requires a top level domain.

No, the real question is: (1)

bdraschk (664148) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790080)

... why?

There is a group in the German captial that want's a TLD .berlin. I always wondered, what they would do with it. If i want to find Berlin's website now, i'd try berlin.de or www.berlin.de. What would the future web address be? www.berlin? How can i be sure i end up in my capital and not in Berlin, TX (i'm pretty sure there is one :-)

This just deepens our dependence on search engines.

Re:No, the real question is: (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790128)

Just for curiosity, there's Berlin, Vermont.

http://www.virtualvermont.com/towns/berlin.html [virtualvermont.com]

Re:No, the real question is: (1)

paiute (550198) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790878)

And Berlin, Mass.

Long overdue (2, Interesting)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790096)

The only reason that .com was so popular was due to marketing; practically no one in meatspace knows what .com even means. It's just a freaking address for Christ's sake. We need a metric shit ton of new TLDs so that we can get away from "premium" TLDs. It's a lot like when they rolled out 888 and 877 toll-free numbers; 800 numbers commanded a premium, due to marketing. it's a just a phone number, if your customers can find you who cares? Besides, do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough not to call you or visit your site because you don't have an 800 number or a .com domain? I do have a number of .com domains, but I really wish the importance of the TLDs would diminish.

Oh, and fuck domain squaters.

Re:Long overdue (1)

SteveFoerster (136027) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790720)

Besides, do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough not to call you or visit your site because you don't have an 800 number or a .com domain?

Um, I think that most businesses would say yes.

-=Steve=-

Re:Long overdue (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792826)

I've hat to deal with really stupid customers in the past. In this economy maybe, but really stupid people are more trouble than they're worth. Of course I have a business providing a professional service. If you're selling widgets then yes, I stand corrected.

Re:Long overdue (2, Insightful)

bingoUV (1066850) | more than 4 years ago | (#30799726)

But stupid customers are so easy to part from their money. Companies can't just resist loving stupid customers.

Re:Long overdue (1)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793770)

fuck domain squaters.
 
I completely agree with your sentiment.
 
Having said that, I feel a bit hypocritical because I discovered that my name was available in my country's tld (firstnamelastname.tld) a couple of weeks ago so I immediately registered it and added it to the half-dozen domain names that I currently use for various legitimate business enterprises.
 
However, I have no immediate idea what to do with my new firstnamelastname.tld domain name, yet. I put up a generic webpage with my name and address on it and set it up to receive email sent to me and I'm sure I'll think of a real use for it at some point. I have a few vague ideas but nothing that I'm ready to start implementing yet.
 
I wanted to grab it quick before someone else did and I'm mostly just sitting on it for the moment.
 
Does that make me a domain squatter? [shudder]

100s? (1)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790136)

Dilute DNS even more.

Re:100s? (1)

TheTurtlesMoves (1442727) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790254)

Not really. Well not IMO. The point of DNS is to take something human readable and perhaps human memorable and turn into something that the protocols can use. In fact there really is no need for levels and dots at all, well not technically.

Re:100s? (1)

Lennie (16154) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790432)

I think someone should register: .cdn

I see a lot of domains now being registered twice, ytimg, yimg, fbcdn, etc.

Scarcity / Squatters (2, Interesting)

chapstercni (238462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790684)

Several things imo.

As websites increase in number, the typical need for more unique domains increase. If a significant number of unique names are all tried to pull from a small number of TLD's, this makes it more difficult to find an available name that fits what you are trying to do. A substantial number of domains are tied up because of the squatters.

If the REAL cost was ten bucks a year or so to keep a domain, the squatting would go down. Remember when .com was $50.00 a year? The really juicy names would still be squatted on. With business.com selling for how many millions?

If a lot of new .TLD's are opened up, then it will be easy for you to get a domain you want. Say, bobspizza.newtld. If there is a real baseline of cost that makes it unlikely that people will squat on these new domains, then they will be available for business/people/organizations to use. However, .com is STILL the king of domains, and is what people want. But increase the supply say with 100 new TLD's (or more), and the impact of .com will be lessened, and the cost of squatting will become just too much.

I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays. With no TLD at all.

Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.

Re:Scarcity / Squatters (2)

dnsdude (1713006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791380)

I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays. With no TLD at all.

Uh, I'm pretty sure both Wordpress.com and Facebook.com end in the TLD .com. Which is entirely the point.

Re:Scarcity / Squatters (1)

chapstercni (238462) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792754)

hah... yes, that was QUITE garbled. That is not what I meant, that there wasn't any TLD. I realize that is what my words said, however.

More clearly, I hope: "I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays. Without having their OWN DOMAIN NAME."

I should proof more clearly before I click on the submit button.

Re:Scarcity / Squatters (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30798976)

Uh, I'm pretty sure both Wordpress.com and Facebook.com end in the TLD .com. Which is entirely the point.

You missed the point of the GP, is that perception of having to have a .com domain has diminished to the point where companies don't mind using Wordpress.com or Facebook page as their only online presence.

The title *should* read... (2, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | more than 4 years ago | (#30790696)

ICANN proposes hundreds of new TLDs for cash-grab.

From TFA:

The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a pre-registration process for organizations that want to apply for new domain name extensions, such as .jazz, .sport and .food.

This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets (ie.: .coke, .ford, .msoft, etc.). This is really not how the domain name system as a whole should work. We can't have creative new domain possibilities opened up only for a select few rich and famous. I'm not saying that they should be selling custom TLDs to anyone who wants one (although that shouldn't be a problem *), but simply continue to introduce generic TLDs that make sense (as quoted from the TFA).

* if someone registers .coke, how is that any different from someone registering cokewebsite.com? Either is a trademark issue with Coke and neither is for ICANN to deal with.

ICANN is a mess (1)

canadian_in_beijing (1234768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791230)

ICANN messed up tld long time ago by not keeping it simple and putting profits ahead of consumers best interest.

Gov, com, edu etc are essential and geo/ country domains are also required due to the recent localization of search. Who uses .travel or any of the other major tld currently in operation? Nobody because they are not marketed properly and confuse people.

Some new tld will be solid for large niches in the internet (.porn, .xxx, .city, etc) and could be profitable, but the costs associated with having your own tld will be expensive and the risks high. Solid business plans and capital will be essential for the next wave of tld (not the same as regular domaining).

Re:ICANN is a mess - yes, but why is wrong... (1)

anon mouse-cow-aard (443646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792106)

The artificial scarcity created by limiting .TLD's to a select few makes it feasible for domain squatters to squat on typos. The TLD's were completely open (any possible), then the economics of typo-squatting start to suck because they have to pay for far more domains to hit a lucrative one. If, say, IBM consolidated to a single TLD (.ibm), they would keep some other domains for legacy purposes, but more than likely, it's harder to typo-squat a TLD than a sub-domain because there are fewer letters to mess with. Spelling IBM imperceptibly wrong is harder than messing with ibm.com. legitimate large organizations can better protect their name with access to TLD's than when they are stuck in the .com soup to nuts category. Concentrating on protecting a smaller number of more unique domains is a net win for legitimate people. Another thing that might help is some sort of reputation mechanism for DNS. Today we have binary blacklists, it would be helpful to have grey lists indicating domain squatters etc... to give people the option to filter them out. Obviously, these lists would have to be maintained by third parties, such as today's blacklist operators, to be reliable. Augmenting DNS would be cleaner than the current mechanism, and would allow to differentiate amoung DNS providers.

Re:ICANN is a mess - yes, but why is wrong... (1)

canadian_in_beijing (1234768) | more than 4 years ago | (#30799998)

Artificial scarcity = competition for a limited marketplace which will happen anyway with opening up the final wave of top level domains. This is no different from the current tld model except ICANN is going to try and gouge big companies for the most amount of money possible. If anything it stops innovation and entrepreneurship in small business who can't afford such ridiculously expensive fees.

In the end .com will still be #1 in consumers minds. Big companies have already invested too much into their .com marketing strategies that it wouldn't make much sense financially to switch to an unproven tld scheme.

Investing in domains is a viable business (excluding spammers, typos) and building up a large network of websites from those domains is no different from investing in speculative real estate or fine art.

Re:ICANN is a mess - yes, but why is wrong... (1)

anon mouse-cow-aard (443646) | more than 4 years ago | (#30803412)

It's just an economic argument. Whether you view investment in domains as boon or bane, opening up TLD's will make far more 'land' available... given supply and demand, this should make the price go down... and also make it necessary to own more "land" to make the business profitable. You say that your business model is viable. The point is just that opening up TLD's reduces that business's viability.

Down with the gTLD! (3, Insightful)

transami (202700) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791784)

I have a much better idea. Get rid of the gTLDs altogether. They are an arbitrary crutch to begin with. Without them we could have freeform domain names and end the silly quabbles over myname.everytldthereis.

What they are up to now looks more like damn money making scheme.

Re:Down with the gTLD! (1)

hwyhobo (1420503) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793022)

That's what this messy scheme essentially is, except that instead of doing it cleanly, as you propose, it offers another TLD boondoggle. It "solves" the problem of one failed institution by introducing 100 new ones.

TLDs were a wrong solution to begin with, introduced redundant names, forced people to buy multiple domains to protect the uniqueness of their name (made tons of money for the registrars that way), but no one wants to admit it. Better to make a clean cut. Scrap this whole nonsense now.

Re:Down with the gTLD! (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30793860)

Nobody stops you from setting up your own TLD servers. It’s really easy actually.

If you got a good reason, and can drag others into your views, so they care enough, go ahead!
I’ll support you! The only reason I don’t have my own TLDs, is because I have not found a use for them.

I guess it would be easier, when we would just use DNS like a free graph. You know. Not a list. Not a tree. no directed hierarchy. A graph. Because reality never is a single hierarchy. (Which is what also causes the many problems with class hierarchies in program libraries.)

We just have to decide on an order. I say we just keep what we have:
Dots: Start at the end, then narrow down. Used for sites / machines.
Slashes: start at the beginning, then narrow down. Used for files / resources.
I think it may also make sense to think of ports and protocols for machines as we do with file formats for resources.

So basically completely backwards-compatible, yet much more free.

Re:Down with the gTLD! (1)

vanyel (28049) | more than 4 years ago | (#30801338)

Exactly! All additional tlds do is confuse end users and make it easier to for phishing scams to work. we should phase out everything but .net and the country code tlds, and keep those only because it makes it relatively easy to tell a given word is a domain vs something else. .net for the global internet and the country codes for sites of regional interest.

Dot Dot? (2, Insightful)

synthmob (1067848) | more than 4 years ago | (#30791936)

We need a .DOT domain -- that'll confuse somebody....

Money for Domain Vendors (1)

pubwvj (1045960) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792024)

All this so they can try and sell us .abc, .bcd, .cde, .def and other versions of the domains. Big money for domain registrars.

.blog? (1)

Stepnsteph (1326437) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792356)

Are we getting .blog yet? Actually that fad's kind of gone and Facebook is the new blog, so maybe .social . How long can these TLDs be?

Use this to push IPv6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30792764)

Go ahead and allow the new domains.

However, make a rule that all sites and DNS servers in the new TLDs must exist in IPv6 form only, and make it an instant ban if anyone using the new TLD is caught with any A record in their zone file for that TLD.

Maybe it will push things to IPv6, especially if the .XXX TLD exists in IPv6 form only. Pron is the only way that we can get a large amount of people to move to IPv6 before the run-out in 600 days or so.....

This way, although I think we have too many TLD's now, if this could be used to push people to IPv6, Id go along......

On SNL Humor (1)

JoCat (1291368) | more than 4 years ago | (#30792818)

Finally clownpenis.fart can be real.

Is one of them .fart? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30793154)

I hope so.

Further reducing ICANN's credibility? (3, Insightful)

grantdh (72401) | more than 4 years ago | (#30794406)

This could have a fascinating result:

1) Organisations sign up to host their own "so cool" root domain, expecting that lots of companies will be "forced" to register their key words in the new root domain

2) Companies finally wake up and say "WTF? We don't need this shit" and don't buy in

3) Lots of organisations who did #1 realise they're not going to be able to make enough to pay ICANN let alone cover their costs

4) Scumbuckets come in and start domain-squatting, setting up crap sites, etc

The above may well lead to:

5) People stop trusting domains and use search engines more (it's happening more & more now anyhow - most people can't remember even simple domains and use search engines to find them)

6) More legal cases for domain-squatting and illegal use of registered trademarks/keywords/etc

7) No more "gold rush" mentality for the opening up of new TLDs

8) Bad press for ICANN and fewer groups willing to take part in the next "all new territory" TLD funding drive (leads to less $$$ for ICANN)

Yeah, I'm just dreaming. ICANN is rapidly joining the RIAA & MPAA as a prime example of a bloated, self-serving organisation that's doing all it can to hang onto a way of existance that's no longer viable :(

This is a recipy for more problems.. (1)

freaker_TuC (7632) | more than 4 years ago | (#30795514)

I don't know where to start first:

  • Cybersquatting; companies have to register even more so they won't loose their precious brands. Maybe they should fix domain squatting before adding extra TLD's?
  • Scripts on the net: are expecting legit input; e-mail addresses are getting checked by millions of websites, mostly through simple regexps. Once these TLD's get added, be ready for lots of these scripts to be broken.
  • Search engines: will be required to find your favorite site on the net; since there isn't a common qualifier (.com) anymore.
  • presence: it's already hard enough to know the host is hosted as .com, .be, .co.uk or anything like it.
  • Spamming: will get to an entire new level; for both receiving and sending part. Because e-mail addresses won't have their common
  • Money: This seems to be a quick scheme for them to create money instead of making the Internet easier accessible; with much more advantage towards squatters and spammers instead of being there for the real internauts.

To my opinion, they are going way out of line by breaking open a new set of problems without solving the number one domain problem: Thefth/copycats.

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>