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!

VeriSign Could Add 220 New Top Level Domains

timothy posted more than 2 years ago | from the it's-like-bitcoin-for-registrars dept.

The Internet 116

darthcamaro writes "At the end of this month, the first round of applications for ICANN's expansion of the generic Top Level Domains will close. While we still don't how many applications in total there will be, we now know that VeriSign — the company that runs .com and .net is backing at least 220 of them."

cancel ×

116 comments

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

Load on the root servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828059)

Won't these extra gTLDs just increase load on the root servers?

Re:Load on the root servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828115)

Won't these extra gTLDs just increase load on the root servers?

Nope, only the size of the root zone.

Re:Load on the root servers (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828829)

You mean the lut (look up table) ?

Re:Load on the root servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39831093)

The size of any implementation specific database that holds the root zone will increase as well, naturally.

Re:Load on the root servers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828305)

OMG.. I'm sure no one's thought of that. Have they stopped making new servers? or do you think that could just add more servers to the load balancer?

Re:Load on the root servers (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832271)

No, they use a single paper sheet and are already writing on the margins. Or that's IPv4, sometimes I get confused.

Re:Load on the root servers (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830781)

Probably, but not in the way you'd expect. Last I saw, 95% of all traffic to the root servers was caused by people making typos in domains. This makes sense, because most DNS caches will cache things like .com, .org, .relevant.ccTLD, and a few others. They'll also cache any new TLDs that people actually use. However, an increase in the number of TLDs means that there is now a much greater chance of making a typo. This is particularly true on mobile devices: most on-screen keyboards have a .com button, but require you to actually type other TLDs, and will autocorrect things randomly if you're not careful...

Censorship and seizure (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828071)

How many of these TLDs can be shut down extra judicially at the behest of political or business interests without due process?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement....for the Internet!?

No US controlled TLDs for me thank you very much. I boycott US domains, US hosting, and travel to the country itself.

Re:Censorship and seizure (3, Informative)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828635)

Verisign has shown itself to be too willing and accomplice to the U.S. government with its willing participation in domain shutdowns. We need more independence from the the body that has this much control.

Re:Censorship and seizure (2)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829183)

Verisign has shown itself to be too willing and accomplice to the U.S. government

Not only Verisign but also ICANN

Re:Censorship and seizure (1)

Sorthum (123064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830495)

True, but...

wait for it...

ICANN has more domains.

Re:Censorship and seizure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39830523)

This was only funny for first few hundred times this joke appeared on ICANN new TLD's discussions.

Re:Censorship and seizure (1)

im_thatoneguy (819432) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829615)

Do you also boycott US intellectual property such as x86 chips, Nvidia and ATI GPUs etc?

No, of course not.

Re:Censorship and seizure (2)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829773)

Well, there's no kill switch for those products (as far as anyone knows) and they don't give law enforcement the authority to cavity search you, so not really in the same ballpark for boycott purposes. :)

Re:Censorship and seizure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39830195)

>> Well, there's no kill switch for those products (as far as anyone knows)

O'rly?

http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/10/12/18/2230221/intels-sandy-bridge-processor-has-a-kill-switch

http://www.techspot.com/news/41643-intels-sandy-bridge-processors-have-a-remote-kill-switch.html

Re:Censorship and seizure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829865)

and anyone as smug as someone from the US is not welcome here, either, so we thank you.

To answer your question, only those that are engaging in illegal activity.

Re:Censorship and seizure (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39830025)

Because 'illegal activity' could be giving out diet advice without the proper license... land of the free!

All these TLDs would be under American control (5, Insightful)

Baron_Yam (643147) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828081)

Making them worth much less than you might expect, given that the Americans have recently shown they're quite willing to apply their laws to foreigners if they can reach them. .COM's fine because companies are already invested in it... but who would bother using a new TLD with that risk?

Oh fuck this. (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828107)

I'm going back to Usenet.
It has better structure than this mess.

I'll come back when the web has been completely killed off. Wait... damn it you get what I mean.
Down with the web.

Re:Oh fuck this. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828431)

Yeah, fuck the web, lets post on the slashdot usenet group!

Oh wait...

transliterations of .com and .net (0)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828131)

"According to Bidzos, 12 of the 14 gTLD applications are transliterations of .com and .net. "

Please tell me that this doesn't mean Verisign is poised to scoop up: .nte .ten .ent .tne .cmo .moc .mco .ocm...

to resell them to domain typo-squatters?

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828169)

"According to Bidzos, 12 of the 14 gTLD applications are transliterations of .com and .net. "

Please tell me that this doesn't mean Verisign is poised to scoop up: .nte .ten .ent .tne .cmo .moc .mco .ocm...

to resell them to domain typo-squatters?

No, they mean like the Russian letters for .com -- .XOM -- that sort of thing.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

shutdown -p now (807394) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828411)

No-no-no, you misunderstand completely. It's not to resell them to domain typo-squatters. It's to sell them to those law-abiding companies that already have their domains in .com/.net/.org, and who want to protect their trademark investment from possibly being abused by domain typo-squatters. ~

Stop the "protecting my trademark" whine (3, Insightful)

Capt. Skinny (969540) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828997)

It's to sell them to those law-abiding companies that already have their domains in .com/.net/.org, and who want to protect their trademark investment

This is why new TLDs are of little value to anyone. Instead of treating it as a namespace that makes more domain names accessible, companies treat their second level domain as a TLD, making the TLD just about as significant as the "www" in front. Purveyors of domain names don't help, they actively promote the practice. Porn sites were up in arms when .XXX was in the news, claiming "it will only cost us more to register the new domain name and protect our trademark." These folks are missing the point of creating new TLDs. They are namespaces which serve to increase the number of second-level domains that are available to the community. All this "protecting my trademark" whining has to stop before internet DNS turns into the US patent system.

Re:Stop the "protecting my trademark" whine (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39830353)

It doesn't matter what the intended use of a product is. It matters what the customers think of it.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

rtb61 (674572) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830329)

Great scam isn't it. Verisign get little to no money from the after market for domain names, so the only way they can ramp up profits every year, a requirement under the God of US capitalism, is to increase the number of TLD,s forcing existing companies to not only buy them up but to have to rent them year in and year out for the foreseeable future.

Catch with this, the blatant greed game is likely to piss off a bunch of other countries who are likely to turn around and cripple Verisign's get rich quick scheme and value by creating local only high level TLD's and requiring independent payment for all of them.

The new war, where will ISP's get their customers to point their DNS Address to point to. Make no mistake in the Domain Name gold mine, it is the ISP's and of course inevitably the governments that regulate them that have the upper hand, the high ground. With that DNS address entry so go the customers, the end users, the wallets to be milked.

The bigger the ISP the greater the temptation to create your own DNS database and offer up entries for sale so they can access your clients (mirror default, buy to change entry).

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828423)

Please tell me that this doesn't mean Verisign is poised to scoop up: .nte .ten .ent .tne .cmo .moc .mco .ocm...

Why did you bother posting when its clear that you don't even understand what the word 'transliteration' means?

It isn't even a difficult concept; I assume that you posted solely to cement the fact that you're an uneducated cretin.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828563)

We represent the majority of the people in Alabama who hate niggerism, Catholicism, Judaism and all the -isms in the whole world!

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828803)

Actually, its more that the quality of journalism has fallen so low, that I don't automatically trust a journalist to know the difference between transcription, transposition, and transliteration.

I'm somewhat pleased that its not outright capitalising on typosquatting, but I'm not exactly sure what positive benefit transliterations of .net and .com would be to users of the internet.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#39831413)

At least it is not a case of transubstantiation...
Christ that could get ugly.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

sqrt(2) (786011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828877)

You are confusing the meaning of transliteration to mean transposition. Transliteration is the conversion of characters from one alphabet into another based on closest approximation, usually of by sound.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

vux984 (928602) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828951)

I was thinking more that the article had them confused. But yes, transposition would be the situation I alluded to.

I'm not really sure that transliterated versions of .net etc have much point either though, except maybe to typosquatters in other countries?

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829447)

"Uh... yeah... I was just making sure YOU knew that! It was a test! ... and you passed!"

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

wanzeo (1800058) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829507)

Domain squatting and name exhaustion has gotten so bad, it is nearly impossible to create a website brand that doesn't use either some crazy portmanteau or a whole sentence strung together. I welcome the idea of adding hundreds of gTLDs, because over time it will make any one of them less important.

No more will I contemplate shelling out $7,000 because the domain I really want is being squatted. Instead, I will just add one of the hundreds of gTLDs, and make that my brand name.

Also, dibs on http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot]

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829789)

I want http://dot.dot.dot/ [dot.dot] myself.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (4, Insightful)

Solandri (704621) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830305)

Please tell me that this doesn't mean Verisign is poised to scoop up: .nte .ten .ent .tne .cmo .moc .mco .ocm...

to resell them to domain typo-squatters?

Y'know, if ICANN were truly looking out for the best interests of the net, they would reserve all those TLDs as well as foreign transliterations (.xom -> .com), and automatically remap them to .com, .net, etc. So if you accidentally typed randomdomain.cmo, you'd automatically be sent to randomdomain.com.

So I guess we'll see if ICANN wants what's best for the Internet, or they just want more money.

Re:transliterations of .com and .net (1)

LeDopore (898286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39831121)

In the long run, what's best for the Internet might just be what nets them more money. No true geek would prefer a much larger percentage of the Internet economy now over a fixed percentage where the total size of the Internet grows exponentially at a slightly faster rate.

Sure, why not (2)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828163)

its already a complete cluster now anyway.

It made a lot of sense in the early days: org, net, gov, com but those days are long gone.

Re:Sure, why not (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828733)

I say just give every fortune 500 their own TLD. Apple, Google, Intel, Exon, the list goes on.

ipad.apple
maps.google
investment.exon
cpu.intel

Re:Sure, why not (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829635)

Exxon. You misspelled it twicet.

Re:Sure, why not (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39830365)

Give exxon the .exon domain too :-)

220 TLDs?! (1)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828179)

Did Verisign get a deal on these? How do you justify that sort of an investment?? How do they figure out what 220 TLDs they're going to register? The top domains that are mistyped by users?

Too much of a good thing? (2)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828185)

So if I see an e-mail that says, come to scifi.jockfarts, it just might be a real domain, because .jockfarts is now a TLD? It's hard enough to distinguish TLDs now with all the silly countries-gone-commercial such as .co and .ly. Adding 200+ more is going to be highly annoying.

Then there's all the spelling out. "That's J-O-C-K-F..." How annoying will that be? Like when people used to say, "Ayche tee tee pee colon backslash backslash doubleyou doubleyou doubleyou" before they got to saying the actual domain name. (Yes, I know it's a slash, not a backslash, but try telling them.)

Re:Too much of a good thing? (4, Funny)

swalve (1980968) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828241)

The good news it, I'll finally be able to access my bank's website by it's real name: clownpenis.fart

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828721)

Ahh the good old days: "I've got this really good website you should go to. It's Ayche tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot org." "What?"

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828805)

Then there's all the spelling out. "That's J-O-C-K-F..." How annoying will that be?

You think that's bad...

Wait, wait until they add internationalization by allowing UTF-32 characters in TLDs.

Because the TLD space needs to be monetized more.

--
BMO - Monetize the Eschaton!

Re:Too much of a good thing? (1)

arth1 (260657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828891)

I don't know about you, but I've fallen into the habit of pronouncing http:/// [http] as "huttup".

Re:Too much of a good thing? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829081)

It's pronounced "Throat Warbler Mangrove".

Here we go (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828203)

Let's hope none of those top-level domains is named 'intranet'.

Re:Here we go (2)

user32.ExitWindowsEx (250475) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828357)

or .local

Re:Here we go (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#39831531)

It will be fun for those who have internal domain names that are the same as the tld ones.

e.g. if I would name my local domain .pepsi and have the webserver internally on www.pepsi. Now suddenly the official website for pepsi BECOMES www.pepsi

It will perhaps not happen immediatly, but it will happen when there are many, many more TLDs.

Sounds like great news (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828219)

for spammers

.DO .NOT and .WANT (4, Insightful)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828229)

Seriously, can anyone come up with a point for this other than a money making scheme for ICANN? Verisign "protecting" its ".com" and ".net" brands, presumably by registering the likes of ".con", ".c0n", and ".cum" (bet the people who opposed ".xxx" will love the last one), kind of proves the point, does it not? The only thing I can come up with is that because ".info" and most of the rest of the last batch of gTLDs are widely regarded as a cesspit this is the attempt at a do-over in the hope that the scammers won't be able to pony up the cash but trademark obsessed companies can and (apparently at least a couple of hundred of them) will.

Re:.DO .NOT and .WANT (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828725)

I'd be all over a .cum domain! Or rather it would probably be all over me. ;)

Re:.DO .NOT and .WANT (3, Insightful)

mkiwi (585287) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829793)

The reason Verisign does all this is to make MONEY. They are running out of revenue streams so they had to create 220 more out of thin air. The whole thing is a racketeering operation where every company ponies up money to protect their trademarks after new TLDs come out. Verisign laughs all the way to the bank.

Re:.DO .NOT and .WANT (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39831089)

Which rebuts my point about this being a money making scheme for ICANN how, exactly? Verisign is no doubt charging a sizeable consultancy fee for each of the 200 or so new gTLDs that it isn't registering for itself, presumably including what is necessary to operate a gTLD since it's not quite the same as a regular domain. Verisign does deserve some kudos for finding a way to make some cash off this, but each of the actual originators of those 200 domains, and Verisign themselves for their dozen gTLDs, are still going to have to pay ICANN a combined total that is north of $20 million for the priviledge of actually getting the gTLD into the root zone. And all for what ultimately boils down to adding a few hundred lines to a text file.

And what do ICANN's customers get for this? The ability for customers to use a domain like "www.coke" instead of "www.coke.com", send emails to "mickey.mouse@disney" instead of "mickey.mouse@disney.com" and so on. Outside of people in IT, I suspect you are going to get more people confused by this than anything else; I think it far more likely that the response for Joe Public is going to be "Do you mean disney.com?" as opposed to "Oh, wow! You're on one of those cool new gTLDs I've been hearing about!" All this scam has done for me is reinforce the idea that plenty of people in marketing are really, really dumb, and in a few months time we'll have a pretty good idea of 200 or so companies where they've managed to get themselves into senior positions.

Re:.DO .NOT and .WANT (2)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832427)

You are right on the money (pun intended) regarding ICANN. There is no reason for keeping up with the silly 80's scheme of TLDs, other than money. And 20 mil for 200 TLDs is pocket change - the real money will come from trademarked companies that will need ssl certificates. And all this will come at zero cost, since virtually any DNS Server implementation and PKI will work with a valid but unrestricted TLD.

I don't understand why people are flaming Verising for doing what they do best - business. But ICANN, AFAIK shouldn't be profit-oriented (hahahaha).

I think it's outstanding... (5, Insightful)

rastoboy29 (807168) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828311)

..after all, with all these new TLD's it will solve the problem of...uh...I mean, it will help greatly with...uh...um.

shit.

Re:I think it's outstanding... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828621)

..after all, with all these new TLD's it will solve the problem of...uh...I mean, it will help greatly with...uh...um.

.shit

FTFY!

Re:I think it's outstanding... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829767)

holy.shit I wanna buy that one for a fark clone, followed up by holi.shit to sell colored powders, and giva.shit for a public debate forum.

Re:I think it's outstanding... (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830101)

hey if you buy it I'll be happy to buy dumb.shit off of you where I will then stick answers and software for all the REALLY stupid customers i have to deal with! Oh what a lovely day, no more ID10T errors or PEBKAC, you can just send them a link that says dumb.shit and call it a day.

Re:I think it's outstanding... (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832547)

You can already register the holish.it and givash.it

Re:I think it's outstanding... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829061)

not sure what problems (other than money making) it is trying to solve that a search engine won't.

Re:I think it's outstanding... (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832535)

all these new TLD's it will solve the problem of...

Exposing the ripoff that are TLDs and domain naming today. Companies will become less interested in purchasing unused domain names if a ton of TLDs are available. If you could register any domain with a tld upto 32 chars everywhere, do you think companies would fork money for a .xxx? Or a .suckmyballs? Or a .chupamishuevos? Of course not.

slashdot.org is taken.... (1)

whydavid (2593831) | more than 2 years ago | (#39828327)

....you may also consider: slashdot.og slashdot.rg slashdot.or slashdo.torg ... The spoofing possibilities will be endless. Just what the web needed!

Re:slashdot.org is taken.... (1)

Delarth799 (1839672) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829241)

slash.dot

Re:slashdot.org is taken.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39831205)

.slash

Then 'slash.' is a valid hostname.

This is awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828453)

The quicker the number of top level domains balloon to ridiculous size, the quicker the concept becomes worthless. Except for commercials and business cards, no one really types in domains by hand any ways. I think this is the beginning of the end for the hierarchical domain name system.

Re:This is awesome (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829345)

No; that's not even the good news. It's all bad news--all these domains will make people move all their actual web sites from the collapsing DNS black hole to "web sites" on apps, Twitter and Facebook (with a side of YouTube and trendy_html5_website).

The only lining this cloud has is a blustery shitstorm--nothing silver about it.

Re:This is awesome (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832557)

Or some big company (like google) will realize they can roll their own DNS scheming without needing ICANN. And you can bet that everyone will follow.

Does that mean I can soon buy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39828707)

Does that mean I can soon buy clownpenis.fart?

Re:Does that mean I can soon buy... (1)

flimflammer (956759) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829529)

Do you have $200k up front and then $60k a year to blow? Then sure.

Regex (2)

joelpt (21056) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829283)

Well, there goes the accuracy of my domain name regexes.

Re:Regex (1)

Glendale2x (210533) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829555)

I guess we'll just have to start using the IANA TLD list (http://data.iana.org/TLD/) to check against.

Re:Regex (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830645)

Don't change them, unless you really have to. In fact I would be thrilled if all the tools would break when used with a new TLD, browsers would not recognize them as URLs and thus redirect to Google, network admins block them because they could be porn domains like .XXX... Nobody would actually use them if they don't work right for a sizeable chunk of the potential userbase.

Not that anyone will upset their users (and bosses) for this.

Re:Regex (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39831485)

I certainly plan to use/make a browser plugin that displays the url bar in red and warns before visiting such sites.

Re:Regex (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832621)

You can copy the template of the "non-valid" self-signed certificates that scare the hell out of users (and incidentally, are useful to land more money on Verisign's pocket), but serves no one's interest.

Re:Regex (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832587)

Yeah, because *no one* uses DNS on a local network with custom TLDs. You could register a .suckmyballsificare and most of the software would eat it. Literally.

.com is geek-speak (2)

michaelmalak (91262) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829565)

We've already dropped http:/// [http] and www. ".com" is just the last geeky vestige. From a human, rather than a UNIX, perspective, users should be able to type mcdonalds and get to its website.

Then there are Macs (1)

Toe, The (545098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829667)

I guess most people don't know this, but: type "mcdonalds" into Safari for Mac, press Return, and... you end up at the side of the McDonalds restaurant. It's not like that was particularly hard to program: if someone types a word, just add a www. to the beginning and a .com to the end and see what happens.

The amazing part is that most systems/browsers are too stupid to support this...?

OTOH, Firefox will do a search for "mcdonalds" and of course the restaurant comes up first. I suppose that's not too bad either.

Re:Then there are Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829685)

They are too stupid to support it because what only 5-10 years ago misspelled sites like that just adding .com on the end would take you to misspelled domain squatters waiting to install malware, spam popups.

We know you Mac idiots all got your overpriced PCs in the last 5 years, but that functionality isn't new.

Re:Then there are Macs (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39830859)

Don't you mean "iDiot?"

Re:Then there are Macs (1)

anss123 (985305) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830563)

The amazing part is that most systems/browsers are too stupid to support this...?

That feature was common on older PC browsers. They added .com automagically.

Personally I prefer a Google search, as I've ended up on porn sites often enough.

Oh wait, IE9 still adds .com/.net/.org on webpages you've already visited and does a Google search + search suggestions otherwise. Neat. I knew that, just hadn't noticed.

Re:Then there are Macs (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832601)

You didn't specify which other search engines landed you on porn sites for unintended queries, could you be more specific? :D

Re:.com is geek-speak (3, Interesting)

peppepz (1311345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830421)

And Peter McDonald should be able to register the same site for his own sheep farm in Scotland. And Mcdo Nald, which in Strobonese means "tasty vegetables", is a notorious vegetarian restaurant chain in Strobonia that should be able to do the same thing. And users should be able to tell at a glance who they're talking to, especially if they're supposedly talking to a bank instead of a fast food chain. The hierarchical name system had a reason to exist, and with a growing internet I've not seen that reason going away, if anything it has become stronger.

And then who "dropped" http:/// [http] ? Browsers are just hiding it, but last time I checked URLs are still the building block of the free Internet. Here we're talking about dropping traditional tlds in favour of a flat namespace, which is a technical change, not a cosmetic one.

Re:.com is geek-speak (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832685)

Domain registering has always been about first-come-first-served. You think companies don't pay hefty sums of money for their vaguely-related domain names? They do. And no, DNS doesn't specify the shape of content, but with a more free .TLD scheme you could get something useful such as mcdonald.farms.scotland or mcdonald.restaurant
The hierarchical name system had a dumb reason to exist - specially considering trademark law was already mature - and domain name usage as it is today was unthinkable at the time. Borders and country names aren't that stable, and it seems no one predicted global domain-using companies and communities. It made senser when hardware and conectivity was limited, but if I can get a geographic coordinate for every valid address I can think of (and using services a level up the hierarchy), why can't domain names be truely unrestricted?

Re:.com is geek-speak (1)

LeDopore (898286) | more than 2 years ago | (#39831133)

As has been said elsewhere, the advantage of keeping at least some technical identifier is that URLs are obvious. Compare:

Visit the mcdonalds website

vs.

Visit mcdonalds.com

Incidentally, with the way the Chrome address bar works, you *can already* just type mcdonalds into the bar and go to its website.

Re:.com is geek-speak (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832451)

And IE will prompt you the results of the predefined search engine. Domain names are increasingly irrelevant.

Will they all be English words? (1)

Valacosa (863657) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829755)

There tends to be anglo-centrism on the web, but it's never too late to start turning the tide. I'm sure many over in Quebec would love the TLD .tabernac

Re:Will they all be English words? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39829855)

There tends to be anglo-centrism on the web, but it's never too late to start turning the tide.

yes, Verisign is anglo-centric...and when someone else wants to learn how to scam people that have money, they will be called Nigerians.

Sounds Profitable (1)

Kenshin (43036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829803)

Now all those big companies will have to buy 220 more variations of each of their domains. Big bucks coming in for the registrars!

Another reason to move to IPv6 (1)

unixisc (2429386) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829909)

If they are going to add TLDs like confetti, it makes more sense for IANA to allow them to be associated only w/ IPv6 addresses, but not IPv4, since there is no shortage of the former, but an acute shortage of the latter, depending on where one lives.

Of course they are! (2)

ravenspear (756059) | more than 2 years ago | (#39829983)

185k * 220 = PROFIT!!!!!!!!

Will break many heuristics (2)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830171)

All those blog and forum systems that recognize links will be unable to recognize single-world domain names. Or they're mis-recognize as a link every word that's also a TLD.

You have to put a dot at the end of a domain name for a rooted search, or it's looked up locally first. If you're on a stanford.edu machine, and look up "music" or "art", you'll get the site for that department. If you want the "music" TLD (I wonder who gets that. The RIAA? iTunes? Myspace?), you have to type "music.". Unless you're really into DNS semantics, you probably don't know that.

Remember AOL keywords?

unnecessary money grab (3, Insightful)

sdnoob (917382) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830181)

it is a safe assumption that every applicant of one of these vanity TLDs already has at least one other existing domain...

so... WHY THE FUCK ARE THESE STUPID THINGS NEEDED? this is nothing more than a money grab by icann and the sponsoring registrars.

fuck 'em. fuck 'em all.

once the list of vanity domains comes out.. i'm just going to add them all to the malware domain blocks already in my hosts file. i won't use 'em or any site that redirects an established .COM (or whatever) to the fucked-up vanity name.. even if a major online site starts 301-redirecting existing tools, pages or sites i use, to go through their new vanity domains (which i'm gonna call SLD for Stupid Level Domain). i'll find something else to replace 'em -- that's the beauty of the internet, competitors are only a click away.

Re:unnecessary money grab (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832493)

Why should you use .com, .net and org? Why use domains at all if often the IPv4 address requires less characters? And how about your local network, what kind of suffixes do you use? Do you use them at all?
The point of DNS is to translate easy to remember MRIs (machine resource identifiers) into actual usable IP addresses. What TLD is used is more of a political choice than a technical one.

fuckers (1)

Tom (822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830679)

Ok, is there anything that we as the Internet community can do? Blacklisting these crap new domains on our own DNS servers sounds like a good step forward, but it won't have any kind of wider impact. Any way to make them not work for a good part of the world? Without impacting the legitimate TLDs?

First thing I can come up with is finding a meme - they are obviously not gTLDs and vTLDs (for vanity-TLDs) doesn't quite capture it. How about sTLD, for stupid-TLD and with an intentional close similarity to STD?

Verisign's own bids (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830865)

I suppose that versign will be grabbing .idiots and .greedybastards for their own use -- they seem accurate descriptions of why they are doing this.

How this happened, and what to do about it (4, Insightful)

Arrogant-Bastard (141720) | more than 2 years ago | (#39830987)

This has happened because ICANN has become a perfect example of regulatory capture: that is, the people running it are (for all practical purposes) the people that it's supposed to be regulating. Insider deals and quid pro quos are now the rule. That's what we got the .xxx TLD: nobody needed it, nobody wanted it, but there was money to be made -- primarily by extortion of non-porn sites, driven to purchase .xxx domains before someone else did by a fear-mongering campaign.

And that's why we'll get 200 or 400 or whatever more TLDs: because the registrars, not content with selling domains to spammers by the tens of millions (yes, really -- and that's probably an underestimate by an order of magnitude), want MORE money. (Why do you think GoDaddy is pushing .co as a .com alternative, as utterly ridiculous as that is?)

The solution to this is to make these new TLDs completely worthless and unusable. And we can. As soon as the list is announced, do the following:

1. If you run a DNS server: mark these TLDs as invalid/unresolvable. (You could use DNS RPZ to do this if you use a DNS that supports it, like BIND.)

2. If you run any HTTP proxies or filtes, blacklist these TLDs.

3. If you run a mail server, then block all email from or to these TLDs.

4. If you maintain a blacklist of spammer/phisher/abuser domains, add these TLDs to it.

And so on. The idea is to make them disappear from your operation's view of the Internet, just as we've collectively done in other cases -- with spammer-operated networks and similar. Except in this case, we should be able to do all this before they even go live, driving the value of a domain in any of these TLDs to zero.

Yes, I'm quite serious. The only people who want these are ICANN and their cronies. There is absolutely no obligation or need on our part to go along with this scam.

Re:How this happened, and what to do about it (1)

rev0lt (1950662) | more than 2 years ago | (#39832381)

Shure, let's piss all over the customers that pay for the infrastructure. The "xxx" TLD is the perfect example of what is wrong with the system - a restricted TLD set. If you could register eg. cocacola.xpto, cocacola.abc, cocacola.rma and so forth, do you think the company would waste money on meaningless (but useful) TLDs? No. TLDs as currently implemented are an artificial limitation to the whole WWW thing. People go nuts over "clever" (easy to memorize) domain names like eat.me or bone.me, and some of them achieve astronomical value on the market. There's a whole industry fed by pun-driven domain name reselling. If I can use "local" or "headquarter" as a TLD on my local network, why can't I register them publicly?

Please, pleeease stop with this ridiculous naming schemes, stop protecting the assets of a few domain speculators, and allow for valid but unrestricted TLDs. Not only people already use them on internal networks, but some networks (Windows I'm looking at you) will barf less when clueless administrators decide to use "valid" TLDs as their AD root.

As for your list, you are hilarious. Here are a few hints:

1) If you run a DNS server where blocking this would cause an effect, you have paying customers. Go ahead, piss them off. It's not like you are the only provider on the market.
2) See 1) 3) See 1) again 4) This is 2012. Most of the spam hitting my servers is from compromised servers. So, we're talking about full SPF-passing domains, with valid servers that will retry deliver (greylist won't do a thing), and complex messages written in our native tongue (bayesian filters only go so far). You expect to accomplish exactly what?
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>