Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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's Brand-Named Internet Suffix Application Deadline Looms

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the aesthetics-out-the-window dept.

The Internet 197

AIFEX writes with a snippet from the BBC: "'Organisations wishing to buy web addresses ending in their brand names have until the end of Thursday to submit applications. For example, drinks giant Pepsi can apply for .pepsi, .gatorade or .tropicana as an alternative to existing suffixes such as .org or .com.'" Asks AIFEX: "Does anyone else think this is absolutely ridiculous and defeats the logical hierarchy of current URLs?"

cancel ×

197 comments

If bullshit sells (2, Insightful)

what2123 (1116571) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658739)

As long as they keep talking bullshit and people keep eating it up, it won't matter what the logical reason is behind it. They'll sell whatever they can to further their profits.

Only if you have pointy ears... (0)

betelgeuse68 (230611) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658749)

Annoying that is. Your average person will likely welcome it.

Re:Only if you have pointy ears... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658939)

I'm pretty sure the average person will sometimes be confused (like when you give them a .name email address) and otherwise not give a damn.

Re:Only if you have pointy ears... (0)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659685)

ballofstickyfuck.poisonaspartame.pepsi

That is all.

Re:Only if you have pointy ears... (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660345)

The average person thinks .com is the internet. Just have browses append .com and we're there except for the part about generating money for registrars. (i think Netscape used to do that by default, not sure if newer browsers do.)

No (2)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658751)

No.

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658963)

Most web users have no idea what a TLD is or why it means. I agree that this doesn't destroy the logical hierarchy of the web, because there isn't one. Case in point: http://www.com.com/

If you don't have the ".com" them people don't know it is an address. Additional TLDs are just more things that you must purchase to avoid having a porn site on your name.

Re:No (2)

v1 (525388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659415)

While I see a need for .xxx I do not see a need for .brand suffixes. The best reason I see for top level suffixes is to tell what kind of a site it is. But considering the exhaustion of short names, I understand their pain. Lots of businesses are going with .net or .org or .cc etc simply because they can't find anything usable in under 25 characters. When faced with the best available .com being "ronshorsebarnseattle.com" or "horsebarn.org", the choice becomes obvious. But I think adding more available suffixes is going to cause more problems by public confusion than it solves for the website owners. I wish there were an option C.

Re:No (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660279)

Obvious example of where a brand suffix would make sense: Apple/iPhone/iPad/iOS, Android, etc.. For example:

"Check out our new mobile Tux racing game at www.disgruntledpenguins.apple or download the Android version at www.disgruntledpenguins.android.

Re:No (0)

alphax45 (675119) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660477)

I love this idea, wish I had mod points for you.

Re:No (2)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660303)

But I think adding more available suffixes is going to cause more problems by public confusion than it solves for the website owners. I wish there were an option C.

Explain this confusion you worry about?

Most people seldom type in a url anyway. They click links, or book marks.
Or they just type pepsi in the url bar and let the system deal with it, popping up a search with the desired target listed first in most instances
Would not pepsi also own pepsi.com, and pepsi.co.uk so if users fell into old habits they still arrive at the right place?

How long will this confusion last?
Will it in any way be debilitating?

Personally, I fail to see any risk here, as long as the domain name can only be sold to the true owner of that registered trademark or brand name, and not just Joe Domain Squatter.

Re:No (1)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660503)

As far as I am concerned we already have a .xxx TLD, it's just blocked in it's entity like out would be if it we're actually implemented. (seriously, if you ran a porn site you would probably register a .xxx to keep someone else from stealing your site name but have it redirect to your .com address.)

Re:No (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658967)

Hmm, sounds like despair.com needs to jump on it.

Re:No (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659297)

The real news here, which is lost even at Slashdot, is that this deadline is bundled with aliased-to-IDN existing gTLDs. i.e. .com -> .com-in-Chinese. This is big news, and the only thing worthwhile in all of this mess.

.localhost (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658757)

We need a .localhost

Re:.localhost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659365)

We need a .localhost

Yeah! And is Slashdot going to get "./."?

Re:.localhost (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659385)

Watch it get approved, and the ensuing anarchy

Re:.localhost (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660063)

Watch it get approved, and the ensuing anarchy

Where is the anarchist milleonair when you need one.

Not us controled (0)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658765)

At least, USA wont be able to control it, like the .com TLD, which also prevents them from ceasing. The only issue here is price, which makes it impossible to buy if you're not either very rich, or a big company. Aaaah... how good it was at the beginning, when getting a new domain name up didn't cost a dime...

Corporatism: the rise of the new order (0)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659015)

Corporations are the dominant institution of modern times; so it makes sense that they are given equal footing with national TLDs.

If you do not want USA to have control over your domain get one in a freedom loving country.

Note: USA gets the non nation domains because they were first. The UK stamps were first so they do not have to label their nation on them.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (2)

nemui-chan (550759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659203)

If you do not want USA to have control over your domain get one in a freedom loving country.

What "freedom loving country" would you suggest? no, this is not an attempt to troll, I'm seriously looking for one.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (1)

Luyseyal (3154) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659281)

Somalia, land of anarcho-capitalism?

-l

haiti? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659819)

Haiti: the libertarian dreamland the republicans do not want you to know about. Don't worry about democratic threats those are short lived, the USA invades or has a coup anytime that becomes an issue.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (1)

hoggoth (414195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659417)

Norway.
Hope you like the cold.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659539)

Scotland? There you get to yell "Freedom!" and wave around either an imaginary claymore or a grenade launcher, depending on which legendary figure you're pretending to be - William Wallace or the Demoman from TF2.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659543)

Well, there's Switzerland and Iceland if you want to hear about real democracy. If you care less and just need a domain name, you can try the small island kind of ccTLD, like .tv and so on. These ccTLD holders care more about the money they get from reselling domains, than they care about freedom, IMO, and I see no reason why they would follow the orders of big US corps (no, I'm not pointing fingers at the *aa).

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (1)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659721)

Switzerland where they ban architectural styles because of bigotry, and Iceland... I'm not sure it's safe to be male in Iceland.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (1)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660191)

Switzerland where they ban architectural styles because of bigotry, and Iceland... I'm not sure it's safe to be male in Iceland.

... and such is the consequence of real democracy. If most Swiss people don't want their country looking like some backward Muslim state then they can vote to have it banned. No "representatives" to decide that it isn't politically correct or take a bribe from that Saudis, direct democracy.

Re:Corporatism: the rise of the new order (2)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660139)

If you do not want USA to have control over your domain get one in a freedom loving country.

What "freedom loving country" would you suggest? no, this is not an attempt to troll, I'm seriously looking for one.

Finland [worldaudit.org]

Re:Not us controled (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659045)

I think you mean 'seizing' instead of 'ceasing'.

You could not purchase a top level domain in the early days of the Internet.

By design, you want TLD's to be very rich. What's the point in owning a TLD if you can't afford reliable bandwidth, reliable, servers, etc?

More importantly, what's the tangible difference between www.pepsi.com and www.pepsi? Does Pepsi own sooooo many subdomains that it would actually help them to have their own TLD other than for marketing reasons?

This is the Internet. We need to think things out for practical reasons -- not commercial. This smells like another way to make money to me instead of actually help the Internet grow.

Re:Not us controled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659315)

Pepsi will buy www.pepsi so that Coke doesn't buy it and put up a "Pepsi sux" banner.

Re:Not us controled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659459)

so how is this scheme not considered extortion?

Famous trademarks (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659079)

The only issue here is price, which makes it impossible to buy if you're not either very rich, or a big company.

As I understand it, brand TLDs are intended for trademarks that qualify as famous under dilution law [wikipedia.org] . If you're not a multinational company, you probably don't represent such brands.

Aaaah... how good it was at the beginning, when getting a new domain name up didn't cost a dime...

And then NetSol took it over and it cost $70 until the separation of registrar and registry allowed GANDI to jump in and establish the price expectations of the past decade.

Re:Famous trademarks (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659665)

GANDI? What about them? You must be one of these stupid French thinking that Gandi save everyone. Come on, they are a bunch of greedy people with domain names more expensive than everyone else. It's been almost a decade that this is the case. At current rate, they are at USD18.91 (VAT included) for a domain name. I hardly know any serious registrar with a price that high (of course, not including scammers like registrar of America), most of them being lower than USD10. Even old owner of Gandi said himself he was a crook: http://www.chemla.org/textes/voleur.html [chemla.org] . And currently, the company has *nothing* to do with the 4 original people at Gandi, it has been sold for few million Euros. The reason why there's still some silly French people thinking that Gandi is/was a savior is a total mystery to me (or is it that you have shares in this company?).

Back when the euro was weaker (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660133)

Back when the euro was weaker and Go Daddy wasn't popular, Gandi was cheap (10 USD).

Re:Back when the euro was weaker (1)

GPLHost-Thomas (1330431) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660397)

Which really doesn't apply to "the last decade" ...

Re:Not us controled (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659295)

Yes, it is very expensive. It will eventually be less so. It was the same way with purchasing a domain.

I have no idea at what point in the future you come from where new domains at some point cost nothing. Who wins the Stanley Cup this year?

How about (1)

David89 (2022710) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658767)

.goatse

Welcome to commercialisation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658769)

It's just another notch in the belt of commercialising the shit out of the Internet. If there is money that can be wasted, be sure it will be wasted to ruin something good.

Seems commercial... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39658789)

... but remember that the TLD was supposed to be just that, the top-level domain. Why not allow massive organizations to have their own namespace? Granted, I do think they should be expected to provide all infrastructure services (root servers, etc.) necessary for such operations, but I don't see this as anything except a return to the original design.

Re:Seems commercial... (1)

Electricity Likes Me (1098643) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658999)

I agree with this.

I don't see anything inherently disasterous about this, provided we keep the well known domains, and very non-specific ones free for general use.

Re:Seems commercial... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659241)

And disallow any commons names for corporate use.

Re:Seems commercial... (3, Insightful)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659275)

You can do that right now. For example, at my previous company, inside the local intranet I could type 'bugzilla' in the URL bar and it would resolve to the bugzilla of our company. It's really convenient. And now this sort of system will be impossible because it might conflict with the .wiki domain name space. Brilliant, way to break the internet.

I came here to post only one thing, and I'm going to post it. I hate ICANN. Starting with .xxx extortion scheme [cbsnews.com] , now this.

Re:Seems commercial... (5, Informative)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659407)

For example, at my previous company, inside the local intranet I could type 'bugzilla' in the URL bar and it would resolve to the bugzilla of our company. It's really convenient. And now this sort of system will be impossible because it might conflict with the .wiki domain name space.

Seems like someone has never heard of default domains [tldp.org] and doesn't understand how domain name lookups work from the client side.

Re:Seems commercial... (1)

phantomfive (622387) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659551)

I still hate ICANN.

Re:Seems commercial... (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659495)

No, you can't do that now. What you are talking about is a company intranet, which may or may not be connected to the internet. With "your" solution someone inside Pepsi, you could got to bugzilla.pepsi and get to Pepsi's Bugzilla but they would get a DNS name resolution error everywhere else in the world. With this proposed change bugzilla.pepsi would be a global name that can be used from any machine on the internet to (attempt to) access the bugzilla.

Re:Seems commercial... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659541)

Why stop at massive organizations? Am I not important enough to have my own name space? Apparently I'm not because I can have my-name.com for a few bucks a year but I can't have www.my-name without a massive organization bearing my namesake and a few hundred grand. It's just a way of separating the poor folk from the rich corporates. The only satisfaction I get is that organizations like pepsi have to maintain their pepsi.com web presence to keep tits like me from tarnishing their brand.

Re:Seems commercial... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659549)

Effectively we're just going back to the era before .com and other suffixes existed, and your e-mail address would be something like user@ibm or so. The first years of the Internet when it was possibly not even called Internet yet.

And with everyone wanting their .com domain, it's just like stripping the .com like most sites already stripped the www. part (though in Hong Kong it's remarkable how many websites require the www. and simply give an error if you don't type the www, for example hko.gov.hk fails, www.hko.gov.hk gives you the web site of the Observatory - not even a redirect or so).

Misleading summary (1)

parallel_prankster (1455313) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658925)

The URL hierarchy is not destroyed as much as it is decentralized. If I am not missing anything, there is really not much difference except earlier it used to be pepsi.com and now it will be .pepsi.

Re:Misleading summary (4, Funny)

gstrickler (920733) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658979)

Yes, but will .coke be for Coca Cola, or the Medellin cartel?

Coca-Cola. Here's why (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659201)

I imagine that the better claim for a famous trademark would go to the maker of a product deemed legitimate throughout the industrialized world than to the maker of contraband. Coca-Cola, Stepan, and Mallinckrodt hold a U.S. government-granted monopoly on coke dealing in the United States.

Re:Misleading summary (1)

eclectus (209883) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659253)

or better yet, can I get .coca-cola.pepsi and be sued by both of them?

Re:Misleading summary (1)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659383)

I dont think Medellin cartel owns Coca Cola or Pepsi. So, of the two, only Coca Cola can sue.

Re:Misleading summary (2)

lattyware (934246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660417)

They have a really clever solution to this, you see, everyone has to give lots of money to ICANN, then we wait for about 6 months, then they give more money to ICANN, and then one of them gets to pay ICANN to give money to ICANN yearly to have .coke. Genius!

It is a terrible idea.. but AOL keywords are back (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39658937)

It won't be better this time that when they were AOL Keywords. Guess now every ad will have an "Internet Keyword" on it?

I say we go the opposite direction. Stop new registrations in .com, .net, .org, etc. and drive peopke to the country specific doimains. That gives a big "now STFU!" to the anti-US agitators. who expend endless energy hating 'US domination of the Internet".

Step two, on the .us domain, only allow a entity to register a single domain, requiring them to use subdomains for additional needs.

Re:It is a terrible idea.. but AOL keywords are ba (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659085)

What constitutes an entity?

Re:It is a terrible idea.. but AOL keywords are ba (1)

jmorris42 (1458) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659145)

> What constitutes an entity?

A person or Corporation. Just that would slow things down since filing papers to encorporate is a lot more expensive than registering a domain. I'd like to make wholly owned entitites of another have to use a subdomain of the parent but that would be a paperwork nightmare and in a world where M&A activity is as furious as today it just wouldn't work.

Re:It is a terrible idea.. but AOL keywords are ba (1)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659165)

That gives a big "now STFU!" to the anti-US agitators. who expend endless energy hating 'US domination of the Internet".

It won't. DNS and ccTLDs is just one part of the bigger picture. The way the Internet backbones are currently interconnected and its operators being mostly under direct or indirect US jurisdiction, there are multiple ways for the US Government to censor sites them deem undesirable... on a global scale. For example, if the US wanted really hard to kill The Pirate Bay, all it needs to do is to instruct its major Tier-1 backbone providers (one would be enough already) to drop the BGP route announcement to TPB's upstream provider, and TPB is dead, worldwide, without appeal. There are not many major upstream providers that are willing to risk the (BGP-)death penalty w.r.t. Tier-1 backbones. So the US Government's influence on the global Internet will stay, no matter how we reorganize the DNS.

Re:It is a terrible idea.. but AOL keywords are ba (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39660053)

Then get the fuck off of our Internet, eurotrash.

Two internets (1)

concealment (2447304) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659031)

For those who know what they're doing, current domain names work fine.

For everyone else, they're just going to know these sites as terms they type into Google (or Bing, I guess) anyway. There's no point giving them TLDs to make it easier; you can't dumb it down enough to benefit them, and in the meantime, dumbing it down conflicts an already confusing set of standards.

Redinkudokulous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659053)

Vell, in a vord, yes. It isn't exactly new, though. Witness even registrars pushing for more "extensions" to be sold, and a wilful misunderstanding of how the DNS actually works. Starting with the shining example of the "global" TLDs com, org, edu, mil, gov, most of which should've been put under .us years ago. With that in place, we could've had a few truly global ones and keep the rest more-or-less local. It didn't happen. The great unwashed, and for that matter the press, and damningly the IT press, did not and still does not understand it. Plenty of decision makers in IT don't either, and lo and behold, ICANN is made up out of that. Plus the need to "innovate" to justify its own dysfunctional existence. So yes, it's stupid, and a clear artefact and exponent of politics and industry.

Shoulda fixed it when we had the chance. Now, ICANN will go right ahead, and turn the DNS into a glorified NETBIOS type polished turd. You are expected to like this.

Icahn's brands (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659065)

Carl didn't do too well with TWA, what will he do with Internet Brands?

get over it (1)

digitalsushi (137809) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659103)

Frankly, get over it. The current .com/net/org/Turkmenistan/whatever thing doesn't mean anything. Yeah, ICANN is doing a money grab and that's its own issue, but as a matter of just resolving a damned hostname into an ip address, I really don't care what rules are established.

The only issue I can think of is if a TLD is assigned a host record. Like if com resolved to an IP. If http://pepsi/ [pepsi] resolved, who would win between my local machine named pepsi and the pepsicola pepsi domain? I guess that sort of sucks, since that isn't a race that should get to happen. But that's an issue different styles of names, some ad hoc thing over mdns, or even a local SOA properly DNSing. I've definitely created my own TLDs for in-house use, like .lan; RFCs probably say not to do this but I can do as I like, realizing it's my fault when the Internet sheds into a new skin.

Really, no one will care once we have to start resolving v6 addresses regularly just to make it usable. There will be some butthurt because people want vanity TLDs but cant pony up the cash, and like I said - that's its own issue that I am not touching.

Re:get over it (1)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659505)

If http://pepsi/ [pepsi] [pepsi] resolved, who would win between my local machine named pepsi and the pepsicola pepsi domain?

If everything was implemented properly, your local machine would, because the default domain would be searched first. You would have to add a "." after "pepsi" to force it to be a TLD. More importantly, this would be the correct response because who in their right mind needs to save typing four characters to go to Pepsi's web site? (Or for that matter, who would care enough to go to their website at all? Certainly not anyone I would like to associate with.)

Re:get over it (2)

preaction (1526109) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659605)

.local is reserved by zeroconf, and probably will be reserved by the IETF committee on a zeroconf-like standard. One way to solve the other problem, what "pepsi" resolves to, would be to use dots somewhere: ".pepsi" is the pepsi site, "pepsi" goes through the configured search domains before assuming its a TLD (which would work well because nobody currently goes to "com").

Plus, we get rid of the "www". Pepsi now says its website is "dot-pepsi". I could get used to that, genericised over all possible TLDs: My website is dot-preaction.

What use are they? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659113)

What would these companies even do with these domain suffixes? Register for pepsi.pepsi? Do they ironically reverse it and use com.pepsi? Do they use it for cross purpose marketing/advertising by leasing out things like celebrityname.drinks.pepsi? If a company owns their own suffix can they become their own pseudo-domain providers for anyone wanting to use their suffix?

Worse, if you open the floodgates for any word at all to be a TLD, what happens when generic words used by multiple companies clash? I thought it was bad enough for the genericwords.com side of things but now we'll also have to put up with whatever.genericwords as well?

Not ridiculous (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659127)

At this point, the only thing ridiculous about it is the deadline.

There is already lack of "logical hierarchy" in full hostnames and their URLs. That hierarchy ended when people started buying multiple names in more than one com/net/org and ICANN didn't bat an eye, and it was further eroded when domains started using the "cute" country codes like "tv" without being even slightly related to those countries.

Since the TLDs are already meaningless, the gates might as well open all the way. It is truly harmless.

Re:Not ridiculous (2)

wiredlogic (135348) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659355)

It is truly harmless
How many people do you think will become phishing victims through pay.pal?

Thanks for breaking many email address validators (2)

AlienSexist (686923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659133)

Numerous email address validations start with RFC compliance of the string. Some go a step further and make sure the TLD is valid and the domain exists. Some of those validators (rightly or wrongly) use arrays of TLDs (.org, .com, .name, .ca, .uk, ..) or REGEX for the TLD validation component. Now there are arbitrary TLDs? Doom!

Webmail:
To: complaint@mail.pepsi

ERROR! Invalid email address.

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (3, Insightful)

cpghost (719344) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659237)

Well, any RFC-822 validator that is based on keeping an explicit whitelist current, is doomed anyway, has always been and will always be. They'll have to be RFC-822 (or its successors) compliant without referring to whitelists, or they'll need to actively query the DNS for a valid MX record before validating. That's tough, but it's inevitable in the long run.

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (1)

ghn (2469034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659661)

Just in case someone implements an email validation based on your comment: Make sure you read the spec, you don't need an MX record to be a valid email domain, an A record only is perfectly valid.

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (1)

AlienSexist (686923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659907)

"go a step further" (than the RFC)

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659269)

Isn't "complaint@mail.pepsi" RFC compliant though?

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659341)

Since nobody wants to receive numerous complaints I suspect this will sit well with the companies involved.

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (1)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659377)

Nothing new. My primary address is a .us domain, and I've had validators complain that its not valid. They were just going to spam it anyway, so I gave them an address I no longer have access to.

Re:Thanks for breaking many email address validato (1)

AlienSexist (686923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659419)

Exactly. Some validators are already weak. Now we'll have a whole new generation of broken ones. Even more people can experience your frustration.

.morons (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659151)

'nuff said.

Re:.morons (0)

Megane (129182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659535)

I was thinking of ".stupid" myself, but yeah.

Too late (4, Insightful)

residieu (577863) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659217)

The hierarchy is already dead. .com, .net and .org were supposed to have distinct uses. But they don't everyone goes for .com first and then grabs a .net or a .org if what they want is unavailable. The country codes were supposed to organize sites that were specific to certain countryies. instead they're used to make stupid domains like tw.it

ICANN's only criterion here on whether this is a good idea is whether it will generate lots more money in newly registered domains. Better grab your top level domain before someone squats on it and makes you look bad

Re:Too late (1)

Vlaix (2567607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659501)

The country specific suffixes are actually used quite commonly for their original purpose, even though it might not seem obvious to US based people.

Re:Too late (2)

BeardedChimp (1416531) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660555)

Certainly true in the uk, and its own hierarchy is well used. Companies tend to sit on .co.uk ie. The Guardian [guardian.co.uk] (although companies are the ones most likely to go elsewhere if needed), universities sit on .ac.uk i.e. University Of Manchester [manchester.ac.uk] , health related sit on .nhs.uk i.e. NHS Direct [nhsdirect.nhs.uk] , charities seem to sit on .org.uk i.e. The Mens Health Forum [menshealthforum.org.uk] , and government websites sit on .gov.uk i.e.HRMC [hmrc.gov.uk]

True there are people who abuse it, but generally you can be assured that if you are on for example ac.uk, it really is an academic institute you are on and not some fraudulent university.

Yes (1)

djdbass (1037730) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659331)

It does.

.com & www. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659371)

to be honest, why do we need .com at the end of things or .org. you can usually tell if it's an organization, or business. it's kind of redundant, and on the flip side of things you can always have multiple redirects so pepsi can have both promotion.pepsi and pepsi.com/promotion they'll go to the same spot, just two different routes, is it such a big deal? really it seems like it's a little more logical.

Georgia's gonna be pissed... (2)

Overzeetop (214511) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659493)

Yeah, Georgia is not going to be happy when they lose their entire country domain space to General Electric. GE has a market cap of something like 10X Georgia's GDP, so I assume it would be a slam dunk that the TLD be turned over to the rightful owner.

Re:Georgia's gonna be pissed... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39660075)

Georgia won't loose it's existing .ge domain. Any existing TLDs related to country codes are off limits I'm certain. This will only be allowed for suffixes that don't already exist.

rocky 5000 (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659523)

i wish i had a full bladder i would like to just sit back and let the pee pee flow down my legs and sing in the rain! and eat cake while i urinate!

why the time limit? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659575)

if the tld's are to be sold only to entities holding global, dilution protected(nobody can use them, even for unrelated products, for example can't sell pepsi socks..) why is there a deadline on it? because they wanted to hurry up the registrations?

btw how much does it cost to buy one of these?did they make any limit on how many they're going to make of these? because there could be hundreds of thousands of trademarks which would qualify..

Re:why the time limit? (2)

SEWilco (27983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39659779)

if the tld's are to be sold only to entities holding global, dilution protected(nobody can use them, even for unrelated products, for example can't sell pepsi socks..) why is there a deadline on it? because they wanted to hurry up the registrations?

Because everything that can be invented has already been invented. No need to allow later registrants.

More seriously: They probably expect the first rush to contain conflicting applications, so it is best to deal with those in a single batch.

Not news. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39659875)

The internet was initially designed for about 40,000 nodes, and it got scaled up. It still worked. It continued to grow. The design engineers did a good job, the administrators did not. This is a continuing logical extension. Nothing surprising here.

(The surprising thing is that the internet still works, after so much overscaling...)

Evolution (1)

Ossifer (703813) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660065)

At first, when you wanted to check out Pepsi, you had to guess & write:
          http://www.pepsi.com/ [pepsi.com]

And then browsers realized that non-http protocol became rare (gopher:// anyone?), so people could write:
          www.pepsi.com

And then people realized that "www" was superfluous, and so people could write:
          pepsi.com

Now it is suggested that the .com is superfluous in most cases, so people simply could write:
          pepsi

How is this not just the natural evolution of technology and human interaction? My apologies to all those who love to rant about pet conspiracy theories...

[Of course the downside, as you can see, is that /. currently only auto-recognizes links of the first kind!]

Branding the web, doing it right. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39660069)

URL are simply an instantiation of a URI, which is simply an X.500 object.

X.500 could be useful if you wished to, say, build a semantically linked mesh of information resources.

Thanks, Tim.
davel

TLDs, search and your privacy (1)

seifried (12921) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660077)

So I have a question: Google Chrome (and some other browsers) treats the address bar as a search bar. How will that work with new TLD's like "pepsi", does every search (for a single word) first get a DNS lookup, and then if fails, searched for at Google (which means all your personal searches leak to your ISP and any DNS server along the way), or do we include a whitelist of every new tld in the browser?

what a joke (2)

rs79 (71822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660131)

Keep in mind the person that started all this was Eugene Kashpureff who ran around in the mid 1990s trying to sell brand name top level domains to big business. The powers that be thought this was a horrific idea and over the next 15 years captured the whole thing so a bunch of old white guys ran it then did the exact same thing, but it just costs 15X more an they get the money now.

If nothing else it serves as a great example of what happens when government takes over technology and all future technology need to keep this in mind so it can never happen again.

And keep in mind it was ISOC (the Internet Society) that handed this to the government while all along saying it was "for the good of the net" and never mind they made hundreds of millions by doing this.

Hope that financial sites don't jump on board (1)

RandomUsername99 (574692) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660205)

I spent enough time telling my less technical friends to always look for (bankname).com/ in the URLs of their banks, because virtually all banks in my area have .com addresses. At least initially, it's going to be that much more confusing for a user if they have to decide if, as a hypothetical example, bankofamerica.lowrates.cn/ is significantly less trustworthy than lowrates.bankofamerica/ without a solid rule to go by.

slash dot dot slash dot (1)

SirDrinksAlot (226001) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660225)

AND Then we all have to start using http://slashdot.slashdot./ [slashdot.slashdot.] I guess this gives these orgs the ability to have (using their examples) http://www.pepsi/ [www.pepsi] (I had to fight SO hard not to add .com to the end of that) But what difference would that be than saying http://pepsi.com/ [pepsi.com] rather than www.pepsi.com... Like how slashdot currently does it... I admit it would be fun to tell someone to go to http://slashdot.slashdot/ [slashdot.slashdot] Or the ellipsis edition, http://slashdotdot.slashdot/ [slashdotdot.slashdot]

An article on ICANN? You know what that means... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39660261)

Spread the word [kimmoa.se] .

.com is no longer needed. (1)

91degrees (207121) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660311)

Presumably this is a workaround for the fact that .com is redundant. Everyone wants a .com URL for their main site. They might also want ccTLDs for regional sites but the .com is what everyone will try first.

Which makes it useless. If everyone has it. Why not get rid of it entirely.

Commerce doesn't like it (1)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660313)

The Department of Commerce is putting ICANN's contract out for re-bid partially because they think this is a bad idea.

Personally, I think that not only is adding new TLDs bad, some of the old ones should be wound down. ".biz" is a bad neighborhood. Nobody can figure out what ".info" is for. ".aero" never took off. And the entire domain list for ".museum" is about five pages long.

logical (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39660415)

No, it's the logical conclusion of the Internet becoming commercial. When things are run for-profit than logic takes second place behind profit. Basically, if there's a buck to make, someone will do it, whatever "it" is. And in this case "it" is mutilating the DNS.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...