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 To Allow .brandname Top-Level Domains

Soulskill posted more than 3 years ago | from the phishers-everywhere-rejoice dept.

The Internet 300

AndyAndyAndyAndy sends in this excerpt from a Reuters report: "Brand owners will soon be able to operate their own parts of the Web — such as .apple, .coke or .marlboro — if the biggest shake-up yet in how Internet domains are awarded is approved. After years of preparation and wrangling, ICANN, the body that coordinates Internet names, is expected to approve the move at a special board meeting in Singapore on Monday. ... The move is seen as a big opportunity for brands to gain more control over their online presence and send visitors more directly to parts of their sites — and a danger for those who fail to take advantage."

cancel ×

300 comments

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

Why? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479550)

Why bother with a TLD now? $$$

Re:Why? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479626)

Exactly - why?

So now, Apple will have to have Apple.com and Apple.apple? Or store.apple?

Or will 'apple.com' be able to be used by Joe's Orchard or some other no so rich mega corp that can't afford their own TLD?

It's just a money making idea to keep the fees rolling in ....

Re:Why? (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479644)

So now, Apple will have to have Apple.com and Apple.apple? Or store.apple?

All of them, obviously. Let the money flow.

Now Internet == TV (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479994)

I guess I can logout now.

I haven't done so, since 1997

Re:Why? (1)

gehrehmee (16338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479756)

I would assume you'd just go to "apple". Hypothetically:

nickuj@work:~$ host apple
apple has address 17.149.160.49
apple has address 17.172.224.47
apple mail is handled by 10 mail-in14.apple.
apple mail is handled by 20 mail-in2.apple.
apple mail is handled by 20 mail-in6.apple.
apple mail is handled by 100 mail-in3.apple.
apple mail is handled by 10 mail-in11.apple.
apple mail is handled by 10 mail-in12.apple.
apple mail is handled by 10 mail-in13.apple.

Re:Why? (2)

creat3d (1489345) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480330)

How about www.com.apple?

Re:Why? (4, Insightful)

tverbeek (457094) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480244)

Anyone else here old enough to remember the Great Renaming on Usenet? It was just before my time there, actually, but this sounds like the exact same thing... in reverse. They took a whole bunch of newsgroups which were turning into an unwieldy flat file (under the net.* prefix), and sorted them into a hierarchy with a small batch of broad top-level nodes: (comp.*, misc.*, news.*, rec.*, sci.*, soc.*, talk.*) which could be further subdivided, etc. In the process net.comics became rec.arts.comics, and so on. What it built was a lot like the internet domain name hierarchy (but opposite-endian). It added structure and organization, which are Very Useful Things to have when dealing with Something Very Large. (Such as the Internet.) All this move by ICANN would do is to chop the last four characters off every .com in the database, and move that whole damn thing to the root level. If I can think of a business name that hasn't already been squatted, I can still register ____.COM for a few bucks, but I have to write up a proposal and take it to ICANN if I want to also claim .____? Bad policy, bad engineering, bad idea.

Funny That (4, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479560)

"As a big brand, you ignore it at your peril," says Theo Hnarakis, chief executive of Australian domain name-registration firm Melbourne IT DBS, which advises companies and other organizations worldwide about how to do business online.

And it only costs $185,000 USD.

Funny, that.

Re:Funny That (0)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480168)

Why not just have browsers postfix ".com" when entering a "www.brandname"-type URL? Just detect if the last part is a known TLD and add ".com" if it isn't.
I would be surprised if there aren't browsers out there that do this already, which will now be broken due to the "any random text can be a TLD" rule.
Exactly who, besides the companies selling and buying them, would benefit from these new anything-goes TLD's?
Is there a problem that is solved by their introduction? It really does sound like an easy money scheme.

Re:Funny That (5, Interesting)

Rei (128717) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480234)

There's a HUGE glaring hole with this notion. As someone who's filed for a trademark before, trademarks are only limited within a particular field of business. So, for example, you could have a car company named Shiny, a spatula manufacturer named Shiny, a metal alloy named Shiny, whatever.

But there's only one TLD.

So, not only is this messing over individuals, but it's *really* messing over smaller businesses or businesses who came later to the game -- even if they hold a legitimate trademark on that name. I own a small software company that happens to have the same name as a larger, established trucking company. This could happen to me.

(Oh, and if your answer to anyone is, "Just pick another name"... do you have any clue how thoroughly picked through the trademark filings are? The Futurama "popplers" joke about there only being two product names in existence left untrademarked isn't that far off. Oh, and if you use a foreign word, you have to not overlap on both the foreign word *and* its translation)

Re:Funny That (1)

DASHWORLDS (1951110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480276)

Getting into the gTLD Game "Without Peril"....and Without Spending $185,000 (plus potentially unlimited yearly costs).........Anyone can now create their own set of Domains and/or TLDs at no cost and without reference to ICANN, simply by registering new Dashcom (instead of Dotcom) Domains.......Dashcoms are brand new web addresses in the format "sport-com", "rock-music" and "high-heels" (you can even use Facebook Emoticons like musical notes etc).........With users and members in over 90 countries worldwide, resolution is via an APP......although ISP links are now available to negate that need (ISP links that are also available to ICANN).

This changes or improves NOTHING (4, Insightful)

erroneus (253617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479568)

In fact, I think it just makes it worse.

Not only will there continue to be trademark and other fights over .com, .net and all the rest, there will now be a new level of fighting over a huge rush of TLDs.

Next up, rapid filing for trademarks in small island nations and squatting on TLDs. If I thought of it that easily, so did a thousand scum-bags out there.

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479592)

They can fight over 'em if they want, but I doubt that anyone would actually *use* them.

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (3, Insightful)

v1 (525388) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479708)

I see the exact same thing - it was bad enough when a company went after (anythingclosetomytrademark).(anyTLD), now that second part goes from one-in-100 to a wildcard.

Buy .georgejetson and then try to use pepsi.georgejetson and watch the fireworks. this is just going to create a mess. Look at how crazy they go now if you try to register pepsii.com or a TLD they didn't think to register like pepsi.co

Now companies have to be thinking about unlimited TLDs, not just a handful.

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (5, Funny)

John.P.Jones (601028) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479882)

Now companies have to be thinking about unlimited TLDs, not just a handful.

Due to the hierarchical nature of DNS, there is no difference between adding one more TLD and allowing any domain as a TLD (. vs .com).

I propose registering '.sucks' and then mirroring all of DNS inside it so resolving icann.org.sucks resolves to icann's website. Extra props for doing so recursively so that so does icann.org.sucks.sucks.sucks.

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (1)

Inner_Child (946194) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480242)

I propose registering '.sucks' and then mirroring all of DNS inside it so resolving icann.org.sucks resolves to icann's website. Extra props for doing so recursively so that so does icann.org.sucks.sucks.sucks.

Congratulations, you've recreated the alt.* hierarchy on usenet!

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (2)

rdbiker (2278618) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479858)

This is the AOL-ization of the internet. Sad.

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479898)

Actually.. I do think it's an improvement, in a way.

There's plenty of non-commercial entities on .com domains. .org domains sometimes have commercial entities .net could be anything from raindows and ponies to hardcore porn
a .us site may well be run by a company on the Seychelles acting for a business in Georgia

Given that there's really very little meaning to the a TLD anyway, I welcome its further dilution to the point where we realize that really it doesn't matter whether we access http://coca-cola.com/ [coca-cola.com] or http://the.real.thing/ [the.real.thing] , as long as we know what's on there (via prior visits or via google results), it doesn't matter.

Yes, there will be some additional trademark bickering - good for the lawyers. Yes, there will be some domain squatting - who cares, deal with them as you do now. Who cares if somebody registered pepsi.anything - why would anybody looking for pepsi go there? No reason. So why worry about it? Trademark dilution? So print out a template complaint. There, done your trademark defense obligation bit. As it is, with the existing domains, Pepsi Co doesn't seem to be in much of a hurry to get pepsi.cc unsquatted, pepsi.lu isn't set up yet, and pepsi.lv is a dead end.

As it is, a lot of people don't even go straight to a site anymore.. they enter the company name, or even the URL, into the (google) search bar, then hit the (usually) first result there.

If the opening up of TLDs were to have been stopped, it should have been stopped long before the days of .xxx and .aero and far stricter regulation of the use of the existing .com, .net, .org, .edu and ccTLDs.

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (3, Insightful)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480090)

I guess the point you're making is that it doesn't matter - we should ignore the TLDs anyway. Fine and good, but what bothers me is that ICAAN has just managed to pad it's coffers by a significant amount without really helping the Internet work better. It's really just a form of rent seeking [wikipedia.org] .

Re:This changes or improves NOTHING (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36480240)

At $185,000 each I doubt you will a whole lot of people running out to register new TLD's.
 

Dear ICANN (3, Insightful)

stox (131684) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479576)

F U!

Sincerely,

The Internet

Dear Internet (2)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479840)

Yes,we are aware you are one of many petitioning for .FU, but now you must convince us you are not violating the .FUBU trademark.

Sincerely,

ICANN

Re:Dear ICANN (1)

alienoide (2277338) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479902)

Too good. LOL

Re:Dear ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36480178)

This move delegitimizes ICANN. It is now just another company looking to make the biggest profit from the control of an awarded monopoly. I say we move any non-CC TLDs that are assigned from now on below ".icann". Demote ICANN to registry status!

Oh no (1, Funny)

Marillion (33728) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479580)

There went the Internet

Re:Oh no (1)

dcollins (135727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479938)

That's what I was going to say. Beat to the registration, dammit.

A bad idea. (2)

i kan reed (749298) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479590)

This does nothing but muddy the waters further as to what a top level domain is for. The original purpose was to help distinguish the class of site one was dealing with. Branding was already a clear part of the domain. The second part.

This will make web browsers less useful too. As it stands now, if you type apple in your browser bar, it uses a search engine and locates the cloest match to that idea. This would make it ambiguous with a TLD and make it impossible for your browser to easily tell when to search.

Re:A bad idea. (2, Funny)

Dachannien (617929) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479744)

It should search never. The address bar is for typing in addresses. If you want to search, type something in the search bar.

Re:A bad idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479852)

Most people in the world don't need or even want an address bar. They want only a search bar - that goes for the first "I'm feeling lucky" result or a results listing page depending on confidence.

Re:A bad idea. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479890)

Yeah, well Chrome, Safari and Internet Explorer 9 removed the Search Bar, thank you very much for your uninformed comment!

Re:A bad idea. (4, Funny)

rockout (1039072) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480006)

Thanks Grampa. I'll inform the Google Chrome team of your wacky 90's idea. Should go over big.

Re:A bad idea. (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480018)

That is the search bar. A dedicated text field you have to put your cursor in depending on whether you want to visit a URL or search for keywords is a waste of screen space and of user time.

Re:A bad idea. (1, Insightful)

Jane Q. Public (1010737) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480312)

Utter nonsense. Unless you want to give all your searching over to whatever search service (read: "corporation") happens to have control of your address bar at any point in time. If you're a Google fanboi, maybe you like that idea. I don't.

There is perfectly good rationale for having your searches separate from your explicit addresses. When I want to go to a site, I want to go to the site I typed in, not some search engine's idea of what site I was looking for.

It may be a "90s" idea (as someone else called it), but it's a damned good one. I'll keep my searches separate, thank you very f*ing much.

Re:A bad idea. (3, Insightful)

91degrees (207121) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479816)

The waters have been muddy for a long time now. For a lot of major sites, the .net .org and .com will redirect to the same place.

We've reached the stage where .com just means "on the internet". It's redundant. This is just a roundabout way of eliminating the need for ".com"

Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (4, Insightful)

onkelonkel (560274) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479600)

My impression is that most folks don't type addresses, they get to sites through google. If I want to go to say Ford's website I open google, type ford, and click on the first link. I usually never type urls unless I have no other way to get there. I don't really need to care if their site is ford.com or cars.ford or whatevever.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (2)

Literaphile (927079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479638)

My impression is that most folks don't type addresses, they get to sites through google. If I want to go to say Ford's website I open google, type ford, and click on the first link. I usually never type urls unless I have no other way to get there. I don't really need to care if their site is ford.com or cars.ford or whatevever.

This is basically it. Top level domains are getting to be virtually irrelevant to the average user.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479810)

Top level domains are getting to be virtually irrelevant

And the solution to that is definitely add 'more' of them?

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (1)

siride (974284) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480076)

The solution to what problem, exactly? TLDs are already semantic defunct. They weren't really necessary in the first place. As others here have pointed out, there's no point in artificially limiting TLDs to meaningless TLAs like "com" or "net".

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479654)

I only Google it if I have to. I try to type the URL in myself, or let Firefox autofill it for me.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479666)

You dont. others do. no insight here i'm afraid.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479854)

That's funny, I'm pretty sure I made fun of my technically illiterate friends for doing this years ago.

I'd watch this happen. they'd type in www.google.com to get to google's web page, and and then they'd type in "comcast" to get to comcast's website. I'd be like "I watched you type in 'www', 'comcast', and '.com', so I know you have it in you to type in 'www.comcast.com', why the hell didn't you?"

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479918)

I'd watch this happen. they'd type in www.google.com to get to google's web page, and and then they'd type in "comcast" to get to comcast's website. I'd be like "I watched you type in 'www', 'comcast', and '.com', so I know you have it in you to type in 'www.comcast.com', why the hell didn't you?"

because they didn't know that comcast's address was comcast.com?

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479990)

"I want to go to a business's website, but I don't know what the address is. I figured I'd try typing the name of the business, and put a .com at the end, and omg it worked!"

"Congratulations little billy, you just passed the 'free gimme' pop quiz on the first freakin day of 'how to use the web 101'."

Come on, we can't all be masters of IT, but if you can't put your brain around the idea that most companies of a certain size -probably- own the domain with their name in it and .com at the end... you need to go back to your game boy, you aren't ready for real computers yet.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36480048)

Sometimes I can't remember if some site was a .org or .com or .net or what, so I search.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (4, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479988)

What's bad is that I have seen people who, when I say, "Go to Google," actually go to Google, type in "google" in the search bar, and click the first link to get to it.

Re:Do TLDs and Urls actually matter to users? (1)

QuantumRiff (120817) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480262)

wait.. how do you send emails to people then?

I don't know anything anymore... (1)

spliffington (1130983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479614)

This seems like it could be really confusing for users being bounced around domains everytime they change pages. Then again the hip browsers are hiding the URL bar by default so wtf do I know anymore...

How do you guys think this would work? What would brands use different domain names for if the extension is the brandname? Would it be for different geographic regions? different pages? different languages?

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (-1, Offtopic)

spliffington (1130983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479668)

Why does every comment here have a score of exactly two minutes after the article was posted? Is it standard practice to mod up your own comments here. FUCK THIS.

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (1)

sed quid in infernos (1167989) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479796)

Why does every comment here have a score of exactly two minutes after the article was posted? Is it standard practice to mod up your own comments here. FUCK THIS.

Calm down. People who have been moderated up enough times in the past have +1 to their comments' scores as a Karma Bonus Modifier. You can change this for your profile, which would drop a bunch of the +2s you see down to +1.

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (0)

spliffington (1130983) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480040)

Calm down. People who have been moderated up enough times in the past have +1 to their comments' scores as a Karma Bonus Modifier. You can change this for your profile, which would drop a bunch of the +2s you see down to +1.

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhh. Thanks for pointing that out. It's time for me to RTFM.

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479824)

If you have enough karma, your posts start at a score of two.

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (1)

nospam007 (722110) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479878)

Good boys start at 4. ;-)

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480128)

Apparently precious few 'good' boys here.

Re:I don't know anything anymore... (1)

ganjadude (952775) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479844)

you cannot mod your own posts, you cannot even mod in a thread where you have posted, Its all in the settings you have set my friend.

That's a WONDERFUL idea (5, Insightful)

idontgno (624372) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479618)

Now Apple Computers, Apple Corp, and assorted apple grower associations can all go to legal war with each over who has the most right to the one, the only, the singular ".apple" vanity TLD.

Protip: Trademarks don't all share the same namespace, and only have to be unique within a general field of commercial endeavor.

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (1)

Aeros (668253) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479646)

So we will be able to go to apple.apple now. Much nicer than apple.com

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479812)

I plan to go to cult.apple where me and my fanboy brethren can love our minimalist designs in peace. =)...I'm only half kidding as I really do like recent apple products.

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479818)

So we will be able to go to apple.apple now. Much nicer than apple.com

Yeah, and we can go to com.apple to see apple commercials.

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479720)

comp.apple
music.apple

They can all share it with their own unique domain name under the shared TLD. If you want to have special sub-brands or products you can throw it as a subdomain under your domain...
ipad2.comp.apple
beatles.music.apple
or beatles.apple if the brand is big enough to warrant it.

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (4, Informative)

eln (21727) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479768)

Just like they all live happily as subdomains of apple.com now, right?

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (2)

pixelpusher220 (529617) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479826)

rotten.apple?

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (1)

Archwyrm (670653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480188)

Reminds one of USENET..

comp.sys.apple
comp.sys.apple.ipad2
alt.music.apple.beatles

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (3, Informative)

rabtech (223758) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479946)

Since when has ICANN given a single thought to what is good for the internet, what makes sense, or what the users of the internet want? This is all about money... they intend to charge huge $$$ for your own TLD. I'm sure they will award themselves big fat bonuses for being so innovative.

The problem is I can't think of anything better to replace ICANN; Giving the UN control over the internet is certain to be worse. Letting idiots with no idea how the internet works vote on its architecture is equally as awful. As soon as national governments get involved, you have their ridiculous petty disputes and nationalism injecting themselves into every issue (go read up on why MS had to disable the timezone map in Windows... India threatened to kick them out of the country because one or two pixels weren't properly highlighted due to conflicting claims over a certain region.)

Re:That's a WONDERFUL idea (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480160)

If you disallow ICANN's ability to charge people for stupid things, or change the charter so the charges are very nominal, it would go a long way to prevent this sort of behavior. This really benefits ICANN and nobody else (OK, some lawyers, they don't count...)

This is stupid (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479634)

Proliferating the TLDs with all the .com domain names is just plain asinine.

Someone take these morons out back and have them shot, please.

TLDs are almost worthless (2)

Tetsujin (103070) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480336)

Proliferating the TLDs with all the .com domain names is just plain asinine.

Someone take these morons out back and have them shot, please.

As a counter-argument, I'd say that TLDs themselves (as they currently stand) are pretty worthless these days.

Consider: If you have a site that's not on ".com", and there's another domain with the same name, except it's in ".com", there's a pretty good chance site visitors will screw up and go to the ".com" on instead. If the same name is in different TLDs and these domains are not run by the same organization, confusion is bound to result.

So one solution would be to go to a fully flat namespace. Ditch TLDs. Do that, and any given name is going to be held by just one organization.

That's pretty much what this change is. TLDs become the new domains, while domain names within traditional TLDs become somewhat devalued. There will be a new "land-grab" for the newly-available TLD space, but given the cost, not many will gobble up TLDs frivolously.

If this catches on, there will be various benefits for those who can afford the premium exposure. "dot-com" will gradually become old-fashion and forgotten. The cost of domain-squatting a TLD will be significantly higher... And the difference between a high-budget site and a low-budget site (presently a matter of hosting quality, software quality, and organizational effort) would be reflected in the site's domain name, as well.

Of course, I'm less pleased with what this change would mean for everybody else - anyone who can't drop $185k on a TLD. Small sites will become increasingly marginalized...

Special treatment for large companies (1)

lavagolemking (1352431) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479648)

This is just propping up the already large, uninnovative, and anti-competitive companies like Microsoft and Apple, while leaving smaller companies in the "dirt road" of domains. In the future, we can consumers to look for .BRAND, and blow off anybody with .com/.net/.org/whatever because they didn't pay the small price of $185,000. It's not like the market is unbalanced now or anything, so what could this hurt? Thank you, ICANN, for putting the big players first.

Re:Special treatment for large companies (1)

MobileTatsu-NJG (946591) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479680)

I'm with you and all but, seriously, it's not like Google will stop working. So a company has a brand domain, bfd.

What about a domain name? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479660)

The potential is huge! It still just seems really strange at this point in time, but guess it will assist in making the web more and more natural in the future.

I'd guess you'll pay a lot more than a .com and then still have to keep the .com to attract traffic.

Wonder what all the rules and regulations are going to be...

Registrar greed at its finest... (2)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479664)

This is just plain stupid...but then again, how many ideas birthed from pure greed aren't. I'll believe it's not an act of greed when they only charge $5/year to register these "uber-premium" names. Fat chance of THAT happening.

And when they advertise it's "dangerous" for companies to NOT register ALL relevant TLDs related to their business? I can hear the registrar salesperson now..."What?!?, you mean you don't have yourcompany.com/.net/.org/.info/.biz/.me/.mobi/.us/.biz/(and now) .brandname!?! You MUST register ALL of these NOW or your brand will surely be ruined!"

Yeah, good luck with SEO too...All their damn TLDs won't even fit on the first page of hits.

Why? (1)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479670)

Other than shiny marketing-speak, what is the practical difference between something like computers.apple.com and computers.apple? I doubt anyone is going to use brandname.brandname URLs, so are we just waving goodbye to the first section of the domain?

Re:Why? (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480288)

I doubt anyone is going to use brandname.brandname URLs

How about boing.boing and pizza.pizza?

Heh, I can't wait to see how this messes up form input validation. "dave@hal really is my email address, goddammit!"

um... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479674)

Thats .Awesome

Corporations and countries (2)

pinkfalcon (215531) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479682)

Just one more step for Corporations to be considered Sovereign Entities. Soon they will be considered the same as a country.

Re:Corporations and countries (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479740)

Good. The we can cut off CEOs head.

Re:Corporations and countries (1)

Duradin (1261418) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480272)

Without the Shiawase Decision how are we going to be running around with Panther Assault Canons and more chrome than a Harley?

The AOL-ization of the internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479684)

...dumbs down the internet for newbies

Monetization of what should be neutral (5, Interesting)

improfane (855034) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479738)

The internet is damaged by commercial interests. I don't think I'm speaking from nostalgia about 'the good old days' but large commercial interests have only weakened the utility of the internet.

The top level domains should be neutral. The internet is no longer neutral if every company can buy out the namespace.

I envy biological scientists and ecologists with their highly organized binomial classification systems. They're neutral. They organize information how it should be organized.

I reckon we have difficulty classifying and namespacing the internet is because we don't really know what it is. I guarantee that the information architecture will have at least one massive restructuring in our lifetimes. One day it will be called something different, like 'the link' or the 'exchange'. You know the 'omniscient' like information system that you see alien races mention in Star Trek.

Re:Monetization of what should be neutral (1)

frank_adrian314159 (469671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479914)

I envy biological scientists and ecologists with their highly organized binomial classification systems. They're neutral. They organize information how it should be organized.

That's why there should only be an "asshat" TLD with all of the brands going under that.

i-cann-has-tld? (1)

alphatel (1450715) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479758)

ICANN only cares about profit. No surprises there. No matter how many governments and corporations write in to say this idea sucks, they still have complete autonomy and can assure themselves 10 years of awesome fees if they approve this. So it will be approved, without question.

corporate dystopia is here (4, Insightful)

hellfire (86129) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479760)

Hmmmmm, until recently, only countries and groups got TLDs. Now, corporations have been elevated to the level of countries.

Yet another sign that the dystopia is upon us.

hostnames vs tlds (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479808)

So, what happens if my company is called "localhost" and I want the "localhost" tld?

I guess that's a bad idea for a business name ;)

Re:hostnames vs tlds (1)

blueg3 (192743) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479886)

Quick: start a company called Localdomain and trademark the name.

Once you get your new TLD, your website, of course, will be hosted on the machine "localhost".

Re:hostnames vs tlds (1)

thedarb (181754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480072)

Doh, had the same idea... just posted and now I see yours. Sorry.

ICANN finally sold out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479832)

Took them long enough

Can't wait to see which spammer registers free.viagra

Last one out please turn off the lights (1)

Lieutenant_Dan (583843) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479842)

This is stupid on so many levels. What's next? Religions and cults? Political parties? Hobbies?

Man, who will be the registration authority? How will domains be impacted when/if companies are prohibited from doing business in some location?

IPv6, first. (1)

corychristison (951993) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479900)

We need IPv6 to be fully supported by everyone, first. More domains and sub-domains means more SSL certificates and exchange servers, etc. Which means more IP addresses.

I know, I know, name based hosting and all that. Unfortunately large corps don't think that way, they think in terms of IP blocks. They will see this as a reason for more IP block thus diminishing the already relatively low number of IPv4 addresses.

So in conclusion, focus on IPv6 first.

My personal opinion on this is it's a stupid gimmick by ICANN to make more money although I do see the value in some very specific use cases. Although I think we might be shooting ourselves in the foot here.

Give a company a monopoly... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36479926)

...witness greed. ICANN, get lost. I will restrict all resolvers under my control to the legacy TLDs and CC-TLDs, until a saner organization manages the DNS root.

The root should strictly be reserved for domains where anybody can register subdomains. Getting a TLD should mean that you cannot have domains under that TLD yourself, except for nic.tld. Top level: Registries only!

Too late? (1)

MacTO (1161105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479958)

It seems like almost anyone can register almost any TLD, so I doubt that this would cause the current situation to deteriorate. However, most of the people who are online have been online for over a decade. It is going to be very hard to change people's habits.

Besides, what is the merit of this? Even from a marketing perspective, most people identify "brand.com" as the address to a website so you can just plop that onto any piece of advertising. How would you identify an address in this new scheme? Add "http://" to the front? The people who don't have a clue would have to learn everything all over again. Or maybe "On the web at brand"? Do advertisers really want more verbiage to clutter their message?

As for those in the know, we may care but it won't make a huge difference for us. It will cause problems at first as we have to adjust our habits and networks to account for the new reality, but life will go on.

ICANN did not weigh the costs vs. benefits (4, Insightful)

GeorgeK (642310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479974)

ICANN has really dropped the ball on new TLDs. Folks like Tim Berners-Lee were explicitly against new top level domains. The W3 even wrote a position paper New Top Level Domains Considered Harmful [w3.org] . They used the examples of .xxx and .mobi, but the reasoning applied to all new TLDs.

ICANN hand-picked economists to examine the costs and benefits, and their own experts could not come up with anything close to definitive as to whether the benefits exceeded the costs. ICANN is supposed to act in the public interest, and only approve policies where the net benefit (i.e. benefits MINUS costs) are positive. ICANN doesn't even know the *sign* (i.e. positive or negative) of this policy change's impact, let alone know the magnitude. Their pathetic reports didn't even attempt to put a monetary figure on the costs vs. the benefits, i.e. are we talking about millions of dollars of benefits, billions, etc? However, many individuals and companies commented in each of the relevant comment periods pointing out how there would be grave consequences, as there would be huge costs associated with such a change. As is typical, ICANN ignored these concerns, attempting to win a war of attrition, to "tire out" opponents.

Fortunately, the US Department of Commerce / NTIA may not renew its contract with ICANN. There is a pending Notice of Inquiry [doc.gov] regarding the renewal. I would encourage people to send comments, to voice their concerns about the bad policymaking from ICANN.

ICANN is also about to renew the .NET agreement with VeriSign [icann.org] despite numerous comments [icann.org] in opposition. VeriSign will be allowed to continue to raise prices by 10% per year, despite falling technology costs, and without facing a competitive tender process (which would certainly result in much lower prices for consumers). The US Department of Justice should investigate both ICANN and VeriSign for anti-trust violations, as consumers are being harmed by these no-bid contracts. Toll-free numbers costs less than $1.50 per year at the wholesale level, yet .com/net/org fees are above $7/yr, due to lack of regular competitive tender processes.

Why has ICANN been consistently making decisions against the public interest? The reason is obvious -- it has been captured by the registries and registrars, who only care about selling more and more domain names, even if they are not needed (i.e. "defensive registrations"). They don't care about confusing users or making it harder to navigate the internet.

Pure Economics (2)

nobodynoone (940116) | more than 3 years ago | (#36479980)

Doesn't seem to me that this is about the "internet" at all. Its about economics. For the ICANN. Say there are 10,000 international corporations who will pay to immortalize their brand name as a TLD. 10,000 corporations x $185,000 application fee per corporation = $1,850,000,000, or nearly 2 billion USD. Personally, I'd royally screw the internet for $2 billion. It appears ICANN would too.

TLDs themselves are antiquated (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36480032)

It is normal for a business to register in as many TLDs as they can. Why not change DNS so that TLDs are not even needed?

http://apple seems more user friendly. Of course, this means that there cannot be two johnsmith domains, but who cares?

This could be FUN! (5, Funny)

thedarb (181754) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480056)

Dear ICANN,

I'd like to register my company domains, we are Local Domain, Inc. Our leading product is our LocalHost operating system. Please register to us:

localdomain
localhost.localdomain

Thank you,
Root User of Local Domain

marines.mill (1)

Archwyrm (670653) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480068)

At last I can give my waterborne wheat grinding operation the online presence that it deserves! http://marines.mill/ [marines.mill]

If they can do this... (1)

rsilvergun (571051) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480136)

doesn't it prove that TLDs are no longer a limitation? If the tech exists for arbitrary TLDs why do we even need TLDs (aside from the large cash pile ICANN has).

ICANN deserves to rot in .hell (1)

WaffleMonster (969671) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480170)

ICANN appears to be well on its way to loosing legitimacy. A poster child for what happens when an organization tasked with helping the network is rotted out from the inside out by money.

Fuck these retards. The only acceptable response should be for DNS, network operators and governments to take a stand and disallow queries to arbitrary TLDs. If these new TLDs can't actually be used they will have no value.

Obsurd growrth in the root (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36480176)

This is utterly backwards. What next, .coolpeople or whatnot? We already have a system for this in ccTLDs. It used to work just fine. If you wanted to find the website for the City of Modesto, California, you went to www.ci.modesto.ca.us. Why couldn't businesses do the same? gapjeans.sanfrancisco.ca.us or whatever (which is still lame for anything not local, but if you are a local busienss I could see the desire). This is just a polution of the root zone for the sake of greed. I never thought .museum or .travel should ever have been approved. When have you ever thought to use those domains or seen someone using them? Even if they are using them, it's not the domain they promote, but rather another "we better get it so no one else does" racket. sfmoma.org vs. sfmoma.museum is a great example. But even before that we had everyone jumping on the dot-com bandwagon when there was no need, like www.modestogov.com vs. a perferctly good domain of www.ci.modesto.ca.us, or www.stancounty.com vs. www.co.stanislaus.ca.us. I thought they actually meant to add .brand as a gTLD, and while I still thing this is a bad idea, at least it isn't as bad as letting any idiot marking team with 190K to burn add a domain to the root.

Sounds like a phishers paradise... (1)

CCarrot (1562079) | more than 3 years ago | (#36480184)

Although I suppose the startup costs will keep a lot of them away. Or have them fighting over abandoned TLD domains...

Still, this seems like a 'clarification' that will only muddy the waters further for most people.

.bank (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36480292)

Why is ICANN so willing to create new top-level domains now but shot down the .bank extension? I find the sudden "generosity" suspicious.

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>