×

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!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

86 comments

Am I Bovvered? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778419)

Was anyone who didn't want to buy/sell them keen on the idea anyway?

Re:Am I Bovvered? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778447)

frosty.piss

Re:Am I Bovvered? (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#39779729)

This was a first post, and asks an entirely relevant question. The fact that it was posted as AC is not relevant.

Therefore it should *not* have been modded Redundant.

NB: "bovvered" is British slang for "bothered".

Yes, we should have more gTLDs! (1)

billstewart (78916) | about 2 years ago | (#39785167)

Some of you may not remember the Internet before ICANN (:-), which was founded about a year after The September That Never Ended, but back when there were only seven gTLDs, the IETF was looking at expanding them, and the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) was their organization that was working on it, and had a proposal for adding seven more fairly lame gTLDs (which was a good approach, because they were going to make mistakes in the process and learn things that nobody had expected, so it was better to do a practice round with gTLDs that nobody cares too much about, like .firm, before messing with important names like .inc, .ltd, .llc, .gmbh, and .sex.) The Trademark Gods got their hands in the pie early, because they cared a lot about Intellectual Property and didn't want those upstart Internet Protocol people messing with it, so they'd pressured the IAHC into requiring True Names and Addresses for name registrants, and they really didn't want community involvement in policy-making any more than the people who've been writing copyright treaties with domain-name confiscation and three-strikes internet disconnection want community involvement, so when ICANN suddenly appeared and took over control of DNS, you saw them doing the same things.

We don't need a huge number of gTLDs, because otherwise it would make the root just as cluttered as .com is now, but there's certainly room for a few hundred. For instance, the US trademark laws have about 35 categories of businesses, so Coke sodas don't conflict with coal product companies named Coke (or Koch), and Apple Computers doesn't conflict with fruit companies, and that could provide a mechanism for reducing the kinds of conflicts we get in .com, where only one business can get any particular name. It would also leave room for experimentation with naming structures, for instance doing geographically-based names (other than the .cctld approach), or phone-number-based domain names, or automatic disambiguation (for instance, if multiple companies want example.foo, they get example.1.foo, example.2.foo, etc.) The closest we've got in the current system is .museum, which nobody uses much.

That doesn't mean that ICANN's $185K/bid system is a great way to do gTLDs, but it'll at least break the ice a bit. Or it'll break ICANN, and that'd be fine too.

I am less than thrilled... (4, Insightful)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39778493)

...at ICANT's continuing strategy to turn this TLD thing into a blackmail scheme for companies, orgs, schools, etc. "Here, buy another domain because someone might squat on it!"

It's not my job to deal with that directly, but as a geek it rubs me the wrong way. It's deliberately injecting chaos into an already chaotic system. It's not like TLDs outside of .net, .org, .com, .edu, and cc codes matter. When is the last time you visited a company that used .biz that wasn't a fly-by-night spammer? Yeah, thought so.

--
BMO

Re:I am less than thrilled... (5, Funny)

Bieeanda (961632) | about 2 years ago | (#39778591)

I am too! I've been waiting more than ten years to finally squat www.clownpenis.fart, and now they're making excuses? Who else is going to go after that domain, Lorne Michaels?

Re:I am less than thrilled... (3, Funny)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39778647)

>.fart

What's for sure is that Apple is going to buy .iFart

--
BMO

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#39779967)

i've patented the ifart domain. of course there wasn't any so called "innovation", but what the hell does that have to do with patents anyway. in 10 years time i'm going to sue apple for all they're worth (probably fuck all in 10 years but here's hoping i get rich for doing fuck all... the new american dream).

Re:I am less than thrilled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39780181)

>.fart

What's for sure is that Apple is going to buy .iFart

--
BMO

Bah, they havent even grabbed steve.jobs yet and it's actually possible to register .jobs domains.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

EdIII (1114411) | about 2 years ago | (#39778921)

FU

Not if I get that domain *first* :)

I won't be squatting either. Going right on my business cards.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

Cow Jones (615566) | about 2 years ago | (#39778641)

I agree, of course. The whole idea is ridiculous, and I won't go beating a dead horse here.

I'm more interested in those "less-than-thrilled" people who would pay $185,000 just for the right to submit an application. The one linked in TFS has this interesting advice on how to deal with a security glitch:

So my advice to ICANN now: get your skates on! A typically British expression with a clear meaning: restart TAS. Stop faffing about trying to verify every single bit of applicant data that may have been impacted by the glitch. Your updates keep on telling us how no data was corrupted and no sensitive data from one applicant was even visible by another. So do a 180 degree shift in your current crisis management.

Horrible advice, if you ask me. We're talking about large corporate entities who think putting down $185k for the right to apply for a vanity domain is money well spent. I'm guessing these guys are also rather competitive, and would really like to know what names the other heavyweights are applying for. No, the only correct response to a security incident like this is to investigate it fully, identify the problem, fix it, identify the likely consequences, inform the victims, and only then put the service back online. Pepsi can live with getting its .pepsi TLD a few weeks late.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778675)

I'm guessing these guys are also rather competitive, and would really like to know what names the other heavyweights are applying for.

YOUR *MOM* IS A HEAVYWEIGHT

Re:I am less than thrilled... (4, Insightful)

billcopc (196330) | about 2 years ago | (#39778901)

We're talking about large corporate entities who think putting down $185k for the right to apply for a vanity domain is money well spent

In other words, crooks!

Call me old-school, call me a goddamned luddite, but I see nothing wrong with the current set of TLDs. What I do see wrong with the system is the continued encouragement of domain squatting by entities who add zero value to the internet. We don't need more domains, we need the current ones to be taken away from some of these parasitic organisations who thrive on "tasting", search spam, and pure flipping. There are domains that have been held ransom for 15+ years now, which have never been associated with a proper site other than "click here to buy this domain".

My solution is quite simple: unless you own a registered trademark, or use your real name or surname, you have to use it or lose it! That takes care of a ALL existing domain squatters who hang on to tens of thousands of domains each, because it only takes one four-figure sale a month to subsidize their entire rotten portfolio. The way ICANN has handled things is an absolute travesty and a gross distortion of DNS' original purpose: to help people find stuff!

Re:I am less than thrilled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779231)

My solution is quite simple: unless you own a registered trademark, or use your real name or surname, you have to use it or lose it!

Why thank you, there goes my personal domain. It's a made-up word loosely based on a Latin word applicable to an industry on which my town was built.

How do you intend to resolve Mr Jim Smith wishing to register a domain for personal use? Does he now need to establish a company and register a trademark for loofoodoo.org?

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

Zontar The Mindless (9002) | about 2 years ago | (#39779747)

Huh? What part of "unless..., or..., or..., you have to use it or lose it!" did you fail to understand?

Re:I am less than thrilled... (2)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#39780833)

My solution is quite simple: unless you own a registered trademark, or use your real name or surname, you have to use it or lose it!

That would mean I would loose my two domains I own.
And please tell me who is going to tell what I must put on my site so it isn't domain squatting? That would mean telling be what content I can not put on my site. That is a slippery slope to censorship.

I am against domain squatting just as you are, but I am even more against people telling me what I can put on my site and what not.

And no, I do not want to use my own name online. I am very happy that I decided to not do that many years ago. See what happens with the privacy now.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

NevarMore (248971) | about 2 years ago | (#39781217)

And please tell me who is going to tell what I must put on my site so it isn't domain squatting? That would mean telling be what content I can not put on my site. That is a slippery slope to censorship.

I am against domain squatting just as you are, but I am even more against people telling me what I can put on my site and what not.

Exactly. What constitutes "use it" in "use it or lose it"?

Must I have a landing page with contact info? Must I have some sort of somewhat functional website? What if I'm using the domain to host a private VPN for me? Just an email server? Is a redirect from something.mine to mine.com acceptable?

Re:I am less than thrilled... (2)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 2 years ago | (#39778881)

I actually find www.cyberciti.biz [cyberciti.biz] to be quite handy if I need to look something up that is Ubuntu related. I do admit though, that this is I think the first .biz site that have ever found that is useful - I guess that makes it the exception that proves the rule right?

Re:I am less than thrilled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779383)

Would you have found that site less useful if it was called someothername.org or someothername.com?

Re:I am less than thrilled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779687)

guess that makes it the exception that proves the rule right?

Only if you don't understand what the phrase "the exception that proves the rule" means...

Re:I am less than thrilled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779189)

Glad this is the first post. My thoughts exactly.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779535)

ICANN's goal is to simply open up the name space and introduce competition at the registry level (How much competition do you think Verisign has with .com?) In addition, as part of the stipulation to run a TLD, you must provide a sunrise period as well as integrate with ICANN's trademark clearninghouse to provide notification to both the registrant and trademark holder of the possible trademark violation. TLDs that matter will have trademark owners purchasing the domain name. TLDs which do not matter will have trademark holders not caring as well.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (2)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#39780795)

It's not like TLDs outside of .net, .org, .com, .edu, and cc codes matter.

That is because the system is US centric. Also it has two things mixed up.
1) countries
2) Company/website functions

If they would have just used the country code, then the problems would have been solved at that level. So that would have meant to have .net.us, com.us, .org.us and so on, without the .net, .org, .com situation. At least if .us would have wanted to go that way.

But what about debian.org as that is all over the world? Well, I see the whois points to the US, so debian.org.us would be a perfect choice. That does not exclude things like debian.be or debian.fi or any of the others.

If you want to have presence all over the world, you would have to pay for it. It would have meant local distribution, just as is happening now already.

This all is nice to think about, but way too late to do anything about it now.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#39785283)

"...at ICANT's continuing strategy to turn this TLD thing into a blackmail scheme for companies, orgs, schools, etc. "Here, buy another domain because someone might squat on it!"

This is the argument put forth by the Intellectual Property folks. It doesn't hold water. Sorry the world isn't com/net/org but nobody gets exclusive use of a shared resource to impose their will on it. You're supposed to have learned this in kindergarten.

Can you imagine is Usenet was sueable like ICANN is ? rec.autos.chrysler might never exist - ".chrysler ? I'm sorry, we have exclusive use of that string anywhere in the world". Sorry, the net does what the net does and you can block that organic growth for a while - which is exactly what has been done, but eventually you have to stand out of the way. Which is what is happening now, industrial espionage notwithstanding.

Patience. It just drives up the MPAA's legal bill. We'll wait.

Re:I am less than thrilled... (1)

bmo (77928) | about 2 years ago | (#39790847)

You have this backwards.

Usenet newsgroup hierarchies are in the opposite direction of FQDN hierarchies.

Introducing a .chrysler TLD is not the same as creating the newsgroup rec.automobiles.chrysler. Creating a TLD .chrysler is akin to creating a whole new Usenet hierarchy unto itself and adding to the Big 8 (I'm ignoring alt for the sake of clarity) - comp. humanities. misc. news. rec. sci. soc. talk. - by appending chrysler. making a Big 9.

In this way, creating willy-nilly TLDs removes the entire reason for TLDs and makes them pointless. Why have any order at all when someone with enough money can just tack on to the list of TLDs whatever he wants?

Also, saying that this has anything to do with the "organic growth" of the Internet: Nonsense. This is nothing but a money-spinner for ICANN by forcing companies to spend 185K to defend their trademarks.

--
BMO

Meh (2)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#39778549)

People have waited 15 years for ICANN to finish placating the intectual property wonks and actually do this. A few more days? Pfttttttt...

How many applications are they getting? (3, Funny)

jfengel (409917) | about 2 years ago | (#39778571)

At $185k apiece, I wouldn't think you'd get that many applications to sort through.

Re:How many applications are they getting? (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | about 2 years ago | (#39778919)

Most large corporations out there are suckers for this sort of thing and some chunk of big name people/places/etc got suckered into this along with possible squatters who wanted to get in on the action to resell the TLD later in an attempt to make more money. Im sure every name brand item on the market went flooding the office to register .(brandnamehere).

Re:How many applications are they getting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779501)

The application fee is far less than the total amount of money it costs to run a domain name registry.

Re:How many applications are they getting? (1)

cHiphead (17854) | about 2 years ago | (#39781519)

A glorified bunch of text that points names to ip addresses with a layer of security on top, with a web interface for users + merchant + ecommerce tools. Any asshole with some technical skill and the ability to follow directions could run a domain name registry.

Re:How many applications are they getting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39781683)

You need to read the applicant guidebook to see the requirements. You can trivialize the problem all you wish, but that doesn't change what's required. In your particular, the DNS system needs to have 100% up time with a global footprint. Not 99.999%, but 100%.

Re:How many applications are they getting? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39780061)

They were hacked, so they're now probably digging for legitimate ones in thousands and thousands applications for .penis, .fart and .cunt, in every possible spelling of every synonym.

Evolution (4, Insightful)

lucm (889690) | about 2 years ago | (#39778573)

There was a time when having a good domain name was required to be found on Internet. In those days, people paid insane amount of money to buy domains.

Then Google came, and changed everything. The domain name was not that important anymore, not as much as getting a good ranking, for which content was key. So people paid good money to generate content (aka blogs) and enlisted the help of (so-called) SEO specialist, some of which went to far (ask JcPenney).

Then Facebook came, and changed things even more. No more websites, no more blogs - "just visit our Facebook page and Like us, we'll give you a voucher for a free bottle of shampoo".

I may be silly but I say: fix DNS and bring back the domains. I don't like Liking and I hate blogs.

Re:Evolution (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778649)

Google wasn't the first, fucktard. Stop trying to rewrite computing history.
 
Shut your fucking ass, dildo.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778813)

Google wasn't the first, but it was the first to make it possible for non-geeks to find what they were looking for on the Internet. And by non-geeks I mean anyone that didn't want to spend 10 minutes reading Alta Vista's help page just to get semi-relevant results only half of the time.

Re:Evolution (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | about 2 years ago | (#39778893)

I was about to pipe up that Altavista was decent if you got to know how to use it... but yeah, I don't think that many people got to the point where they could find what they wanted in the first few results...

Re:Evolution (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779051)

but it was the first to make it possible for non-geeks to find what they were looking for on the Internet.

Uh, yeah - no.

Google's results were exactly as shitty as everyone else's, for many years. What made Google a force was the simple fact that they didn't plaster ten metric megaasstons of bullshit all over their search page.

Bitter nerdrage led to geeks immediately switching to Google instead of shitty portal sites, and they told their families and friends, who for once listened to them - because fuck, people were on dialup, man - dialup! And Google, with nary an ad or news story to be seen, loaded quicker'n shit.

Re:Evolution (1)

dkf (304284) | about 2 years ago | (#39780059)

Google's results were exactly as shitty as everyone else's, for many years.

You forget just how bad things were before Google. I remember the bad old days, and they were terrible. Finding things with AltaVista was really extremely hit-and-miss, and Yahoo! was only good if they happened to want to index what you were interested in (invariably not for me). Google indexed more, and gave much more precise results too. (Nowadays, all search engines are much better than they used to be; the general level of deployed technology has moved on.)

What made Google a force was the simple fact that they didn't plaster ten metric megaasstons of bullshit all over their search page.

That was a nice bonus, but the fact that they took you to where you wanted to go... that was absolutely golden.

Re:Evolution (1)

flyingfsck (986395) | about 2 years ago | (#39780527)

Nope, the really bad old days were the days of gopher, archie and veronica. Altavista was already the good old days.

Re:Evolution (2)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 2 years ago | (#39780223)

Google's results were exactly as shitty as everyone else's,

Bullshit. When google appeared on the scene, they were a revelation. Google's algorithm for looking at relationships between pages & links rather than just counting the number of times a search term appeared on a page was orders or magnitude better than lycos, exite, altavista, etc.

It took 10 years for Google's results to become (nearly) as shitty as everyone else's.

Frankly if you think that, you probably discovered google in 2004 when the competition was catching up.

Re:Evolution (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#39801821)

And you forget that Google indexed the relevance. But the SEOs (before there were SEOs) would game the system. The "old" search engines would list hundreds of words that wouldn't display (words in the HTLM that wouldn't render) in order to game it. Google looked more at who linked how many times. But after a few years, those who game the system caught up, as Google wasn't thinking as much about people trying to deliberately break their system at first, as it was so different, the usual games didn't work. But the system abusers eventually caught up, and Google responded, but it was early 2000s when there was millions to spend on gaming Google, so just after that would be the worst Google has ever been.

Though I wish there was a way to delete results. So many times I get the parked mini-search pages from Google. You searched on "55LW6500" would you like to read more about "55LW6500"? pages with search blocks and lots of adds. I'm not sure how Google misses those, you'd think they'd be readily visible and filterable.

Re:Evolution (1)

Whiney Mac Fanboy (963289) | about 2 years ago | (#39818723)

Nope, I didn't forget that. Google's results were indeed polluted during the early 2000s, but their results were still better than anyone else's.

Re:Evolution (4, Informative)

vlueboy (1799360) | about 2 years ago | (#39778827)

Annoying that to close the "convenience" loop, the *browsers* started redirecting dns misses to search engines, and that even a mistyped ping target no longer returns "unreachable" because your ISP is trying to advertise their own affiliates. This all meaning that even a *wrong* number is a *number* pointing to someone. That's like doing chat-roulette.

I got tired of manually changing my ISP's modem IPs to non-poisoned DNS, because once in a while failing to use DHCP ones results in complete loss of DNS for some reason.

Off on a tangent about how fake our root level and IPv4 progress is:
If I lived alone at home, I could undo all of these "nifty" features, but static IP settings often stop working with 30 days with my large ISP that I don't care to name. I've had to give up on IPv6 because tunnels were not trustworthy and turned flaky...
Due to flakiness I stopped looking into enigmatic alternative DNS services [wikipedia.org] , though rumors of any life in OpenNic are greatly exaggerated (even .FUR is apparently extremely sparsely populated.) And the two total search engines for that thing aren't even OOG_THE_CAVEMAN approved.

So we see only TLD infrastructure changes actually making it to a browser near us, but little else in terms of paradigm changes. New standards take huge companies and OS makers to push, when they feel like it, and then it's a whole decade for adoption to actually kick in (we got approval for ditching IE6 support only months ago, while sardonically non-IE browsers all decided to stop graceful degradation as users switch to them.)

Re:Evolution (1, Informative)

Pseudonym Authority (1591027) | about 2 years ago | (#39778925)

*browsers* started redirecting dns misses to search engines, and that even a mistyped ping target no longer returns "unreachable" because your ISP is trying to advertise their own affiliates.

The browser could not possible affect ping. The browser redirects URL's that are unreachable, but they cannot do anything about any thing other than that. This is the fault of your ISP (and if it was done by your ISP, your browser wouldn't see and error and wouldn't reject it anyway).

Off on a tangent about how fake our root level and IPv4 progress is:[...]

This is only for ``consumer'' grade internet. A simpler idea to get around this is to rent a VPS (I've seen them as low as 3$ per month) and install OpenVPS or some other proxy setup and route through that. As those are used to run largely automated commercial services, they wouldn't bother spamming their customers, as scripts don't care for ads either and broken scripts means broken sites, which means lost customers.

So we see only TLD infrastructure changes actually making it to a browser near us, but little else in terms of paradigm changes. New standards take huge companies and OS makers to push, when they feel like it, and then it's a whole decade for adoption to actually kick in (we got approval for ditching IE6 support only months ago, while sardonically non-IE browsers all decided to stop graceful degradation as users switch to them.)

ICANN's racketeering shenanigans have nothing to do with the browser.

Re:Evolution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779427)

The browser could not possible affect ping. The browser redirects URL's that are unreachable, but they cannot do anything about any thing other than that. This is the fault of your ISP (and if it was done by your ISP, your browser wouldn't see and error and wouldn't reject it anyway).

Yeah, that's what GP said.

because your ISP is trying to advertise their own affiliates.

ICUNT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778595)

Read the truth [kimmoa.se] .

Re:ICUNT (1)

FrootLoops (1817694) | about 2 years ago | (#39778875)

In case anyone was wondering, the AC's link above is an actual article complaining about ICANN. I thought it might be one of the usual troll pictures, but nope.

(OT: I can cross my eyes which for some reason makes everything very fuzzy; it's useful sometimes when I don't want to see something distinctly like now or when I'm looking through a page with spoilers all over. I've always vaguely wondered if everyone can do that.)

Re:ICUNT (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39780373)

Yes, most people can, and the fuzziness, rather than the simple in-focus double image one might naively expect, is because of the convergence-focus link in your low-level ocular control firmware. It's possible to over-converge, while retaining correct focus, but it takes effort & practice.

Re:ICUNT (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778935)

Fuck you Kimmo Alm. Go back to spamming your shitty child porn sites all over the place and asking your mother for allowance.

All the new tld's are dizzying. (4, Insightful)

multicoregeneral (2618207) | about 2 years ago | (#39778669)

So I decided not to pay attention to it for a few years after .info. Next thing I know there's .name, .asia, .cat, .jobs, .tel, .museum (can anyone even spell that?), .travel, and .xxx. And while all of this is going on, the only tld that anyone even knows exists is the .com. There hasn't been a land grab for any of them. But I can't help getting the feeling that our friends at Icann keep expecting us to get Pokemon fever with these things. Maybe if a new tld was something special again? Maybe if the public was a little better educated on what a tld is, and why we need them? Why do we still need tld's anyway? Ah well. That's my two cents.

Re:All the new tld's are dizzying. (2)

Sancho (17056) | about 2 years ago | (#39779007)

I still run into people who can't send to my .mobi domain because their ISP does some dumb preverification of the e-mail address (I think it's checking for more than 3 characters in the TLD) and automatically rejects.

I also get sites that don't let me buy from them because of my .mobi e-mail address. Stupidly, their support address works just fine, but try to create an account with a .mobi and it gets rejected.

I can't wait to see what happens when these idiots run into dot-word TLDs. I hope .gmail takes off like hotcakes and these people lose sales while they're scrambling and paying some outsourced contractor to figure out why they generate so many rejections.

Re:All the new tld's are dizzying. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779409)

I don't see a tld becoming more important than a .com unless we can get these gTLDs they are trying to push at the cost of a .com, and without the need to tack on subdomains at all - ie: http://company/ or person@company

iphone-accessories-mall (-1, Offtopic)

tomiPhone (2621105) | about 2 years ago | (#39778679)

[URL="http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/"]iphone accessories mall[/URL] [URL="http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/leather-iphone-cases_c72.html"]leather iphone cases [/URL] [URL="http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/cute-iphone-cases_c73.html"]cute iphone cases [/URL] [URL="http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/stylish-iphone-cases_c74.html"]stylish iphone cases [/URL] [URL="http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/bling-iphone-cases_c75.html"]bling iphone cases [/URL] http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/ [iphone-acc...s-mall.com] iphone accessories mall http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/leather-iphone-cases_c72.html [iphone-acc...s-mall.com] leather iphone cases http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/cute-iphone-cases_c73.html [iphone-acc...s-mall.com] cute iphone cases http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/stylish-iphone-cases_c74.html [iphone-acc...s-mall.com] stylish iphone cases http://www.iphone-accessories-mall.com/bling-iphone-cases_c75.html [iphone-acc...s-mall.com] bling iphone cases

Oh more TLD lore (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39778715)

Remind me what TLDs have done for the world? Great idea, but bad because normal people do not know what they are. I work at a .org, and a coworker thinks wikipedia.com is wikipedia.org Why? Wikipedia.com works. Nobody uses .biz, .name, .museum, .mobi or .org or anything but .com and ocassionally .edu I dont think anyone knows what .net or .ly are. In fact google is my hostname looker upper just like most peoples.

Re:Oh more TLD lore (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779295)

--SNIP-- Nobody uses .biz, .name, .museum, .mobi or .org --SNIP--

Posted on tech.slashdot.org

I frequently use: .com, .net, .org sites and my cc of .au for the local stuff.

Re:Oh more TLD lore (1)

million_monkeys (2480792) | about 2 years ago | (#39779327)

Remind me what TLDs have done for the world? Great idea, but bad because normal people do not know what they are. I work at a .org, and a coworker thinks wikipedia.com is wikipedia.org Why? Wikipedia.com works. Nobody uses .biz, .name, .museum, .mobi or .org or anything but .com and ocassionally .edu I dont think anyone knows what .net or .ly are. In fact google is my hostname looker upper just like most peoples.

I visit plenty of .org sites and used to run one. There's a lot of useful stuff on various .edu sites. On the other hand, I can think of only one legitimate .biz site i've used. I vaguely recall going to a .name site once. And until this thread, I've never heard of .museum, .mobi, or .ly.

Re:Oh more TLD lore (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779679)

And until this thread, I've never heard of .museum, .mobi, or .ly.

You've never come across a bit.ly link?

.duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39787695)

What planet are you living on? /everybody/ knows what .net is - it's the TLD you get when someone already owned the .com and .org versions...

FP FA.GORZ (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779031)

IT. DO NOT SHARE some of you have in the sun. In the fact there won't lead to 'cleaner They're gone Came Isn't a lemonade recruitment, but the developer

7online (1)

game kid (805301) | about 2 years ago | (#39779213)

Speaking of TLDs, one thing that irks me is a certain major local channel [wikipedia.org] that, inconsistently but increasingly, has dropped the .com from mentions of its 7online website (especially during their local news) and even shows subpaths as e.g. 7online/protect (what you'd see if you ever run into their missing person commercial things). As you'd expect, that URL doesn't work-as-given.

I'm not sure how much of that is laziness, how much is preparation for a future move to a .7online TLD (!!!), and how much is ESPN3-esque net-neutrality hijinks [wikipedia.org] (Disney owns both, and they tout their 7online apps and Facebook and stuff more than a little often).

Anyway I hope they (WABC and ICANN) stop fucking with the DNS as they currently do. It's confusing and unnecessary.

Re:7online (1)

fa2k (881632) | about 2 years ago | (#39780613)

Speaking of TLDs, one thing that irks me is a certain major local channel [wikipedia.org] that, inconsistently but increasingly, has dropped the .com from mentions of its 7online website (especially during their local news) and even shows subpaths as e.g. 7online/protect (what you'd see if you ever run into their missing person commercial things). As you'd expect, that URL doesn't work-as-given.

In Firefox it takes me to a Google search, where the first result is their homepage (not /protect). In bing I get a single result with their page. While what you say seems like a conspiracy theory, I can think of no other explanation for this (well, laziness like you said). I thought it was like BBC saying "Search for <Show> <Topic>" instead of giving a URL, but this is even worse, they give an incorrect URL.

I don't understand this aversion to .com URLs. Everyone knows what they are and how to use them (someone pastes them into Google, but that still gives a good result). They can be made short and simple. They are easy to identify as web adresses.

Maybe the problem is with short+simple though. Even in the best-case scenario BBC would have to say bbc.co.uk/news/trainwreck which is a mouthful compared to "search for BBC trainwreck". Maybe they could get away without using news/ if they used temporary redirections. I guess most companies prefer to outsource lookups to Google, even though Google results are not unique, they differ wildly by country, city, Google+ login and previous searches

how successful was the initiative? (1)

markyosti (2621289) | about 2 years ago | (#39779329)

Seems like nobody here likes the idea of .* domain names. Is there anyone out there who likes it?

Are there public stats showing how many applications ICANN received, and for which names? /me really curious about the results.

Re:how successful was the initiative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39779547)

ICANN originally intended to post this list at the end of April/May 1st. With the TAS system shutdown, this will be delayed as well.

Re:how successful was the initiative? (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | about 2 years ago | (#39783655)

I can't think of a single reason what so ever to have a strong opinion on this. Ehh if they do, Ehh if they don't.

re-root them to .icann (1)

subreality (157447) | about 2 years ago | (#39779351)

... and let them create all the domains they want there. Meanwhile we can go about setting up a new TLD managed by someone who can do so responsibly.

Re:re-root them to .icann (1)

twotailakitsune (1229480) | about 2 years ago | (#39779491)

How about we ask them to reopen the tld submitting, and make a kickstarter project for a new root domain.

.onion

point your systems to the new root, and everyone starts over. all sub-domains of the .onion root can only be accessed by tor.

back to having .com .org .ru .us

We don't need anything else.

How much is thrilled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39780101)

Seriously, what does "less than thrilled" mean? Is this proper English? Why not just say, "not thrilled"?

Re:How much is thrilled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39780997)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litotes

Re:How much is thrilled? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39781067)

Because that's boring and doesn't convey what the person really wants to say?

Acronym (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39782211)

In my domain, DOT is Department of Transport and TLD are Traffic Lights. Please be more explicit next time.

QUESTION: DOES ANYONE HAVE A LIST? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#39782281)

Of the newly forthcoming TLD's, or where to get them from a reputable source?? Thank you.

Check for New 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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...