×

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!

Dot-Word Bidders In Last Minute Dash

Soulskill posted about 2 years ago | from the sit-back-and-watch-them-scramble dept.

The Internet 51

benfrog writes "Dot-word bidders are in a last-minute dash for domain names as ICANN has revealed its timetable for the controversial new TLDs. The organization will close its TLD Application System (TAS) at a minute before midnight tonight (23.59 GMT, 19.59 ET, 16.59 Pacific). The TAS was originally supposed to close on April 12, but the deadline was extended twice because of a security bug. The winners for domains will be selected (initially) by a 'widely derided mechanism' of 'digital archery' in which every bidder will be assigned a date and time and then be asked to login to a secure website and hit a submit button as close to that time as possible."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

51 comments

Ha, I got .midgetassporn, suckers! (-1, Offtopic)

crazyjj (2598719) | about 2 years ago | (#40158109)

That's right! Jealous?

Re:Ha, I got .midgetassporn, suckers! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40158583)

Governments are also expected to play a big role in objecting to applications that have implications, for example, for “moral” issues (expect porn and gambling gTLDs to come under scrutiny) and terms that represent regulated industries.

Due to unanimous decision, your TLD has been denied. However the ".shortpersonrectalerotica" TLD is available.

.first (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40158117)

You know some-one out there is hoping and praying.

Archery (5, Funny)

Spad (470073) | about 2 years ago | (#40158231)

The winners for domains will be selected (initially) by a 'widely derided mechanism' of 'digital archery'

This replaced the original plan for a massive game of "Pin the tail on the domain" after they realised it would be impractical to get everyone together in one room.

Who would NOT be using a bot for this? (3, Insightful)

mehrotra.akash (1539473) | about 2 years ago | (#40158287)

At the end, isnt it just a game of who is closer in terms of network distance to the servers hosting the game?

Re:Who would NOT be using a bot for this? (1)

rtaylor (70602) | about 2 years ago | (#40158537)

Not really. It is a game to be won by the person with the most consistent ping time.

Either way, if you're paying several hundred thousand for a domainname then locating staff nearer to the server shouldn't be a big deal for a one-time event.

Re:Who would NOT be using a bot for this? (1)

Archangel Michael (180766) | about 2 years ago | (#40160119)

Staff? You're kidding me? This will be automated with scripts. You're nuts if you're depending on a human to hit "submit" button on website for a high value domain name. Scripts, properly executed, will be within milliseconds (ie, margin of error) of the exact time needed. This solves NOTHING.

what if they have a captcha? (1)

Chirs (87576) | about 2 years ago | (#40159647)

Maybe at the last second it prints a capcha-style message telling you to wait some number of seconds before pushing the button--weed out some of the bots.

Re:what if they have a captcha? (1)

green1 (322787) | about 2 years ago | (#40160591)

haven't we seen articles saying that bots are now more likely to be able to beat captchas than humans are? I know I usually have to reload many captcha images 2-3 times before I can find one that I can guess at with any likelyhood of success.

Re:what if they have a captcha? (1)

dissy (172727) | about 2 years ago | (#40160913)

haven't we seen articles saying that bots are now more likely to be able to beat captchas than humans are? I know I usually have to reload many captcha images 2-3 times before I can find one that I can guess at with any likelyhood of success.

In fact such bots have been created, tested, proven, boxed, and sold [deathbycaptcha.com] .

Hell, for only $1.39 per 1000 solved captchas, we could spend as much as a cup of coffee and never have to try reading those annoying blurs again!
Sadly I don't suspect it actually would work like that for us non-spammers :{

Speaking of spammers, I have a feeling I'll be needing to update my filters to preemptively drop email from any TLD more than 3 characters. Sorry dot-info owners, but you can blame ICANN for this one.

Re:what if they have a captcha? (1)

green1 (322787) | about 2 years ago | (#40162941)

I'd be more inclined to white-list TLDs rather than just dump everything over 3 characters, depending on who you do business with there are a lot of 2 letter TLDs you could easily drop too

My choices.... (4, Funny)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#40158337)

  1. .comdotcomdotcom (what? am I stuttering?)
  2. .dotdot (The dreaded ellipsis)
  3. .dashdot (a pirate domain)
  4. .slashslashcolonhttp (just to mess with people)

Re:My choices.... (1)

khr (708262) | about 2 years ago | (#40158411)

My first choice was .127...

Re:My choices.... (1)

fotbr (855184) | about 2 years ago | (#40158421)

.slashslashcolonptth (just to mess with people)

ftfy

Re:My choices.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40158973)

Imagine all the nerds living out their dreams of having palindromes for URLs. We all know what the Panama Canal's new one will be.

Re:My choices.... (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 2 years ago | (#40172583)

I can't help but read "ptth" as an onomatopoeia for a leaky balloon, and not as a backwards version of http (even though intellectually I know that it really is spelled that way).

I always think of the protocol portion of a URI as being atomic anyways, so no... I'm afraid that you really didn't really ftfm.

I thank the sincerity of your effort, nonetheless. But I really did say what I meant.

Re:My choices.... (1)

Divide By Zero (70303) | about 2 years ago | (#40158461)

h-t-t-p-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-slash-slash-colon-h-t-t-p You know they'd do it, too.

Re:My choices.... (1)

SammyIAm (1348279) | about 2 years ago | (#40158983)

One more slash in there and you'd have a word-wise palindromic domain!

(http-colon-slash-slash-slashdot-dot-slash-slash-slash-colon-http)

Re:My choices.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40158627)

.dotdotdashdashdashdotdotdot (for the call the internet will give out after this boneheaded decision is fully realized)

Re:My choices.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40158695)

I don't get ".dashdot".

It seems to me a pirate domain would be something like ".dashdashdot" or properly ".dahdahdit".

Captcha word: posters

Re:My choices.... (1)

D'Sphitz (699604) | about 2 years ago | (#40161279)

I wouldn't mind getting my hands on clownpenis.fart (to host my resume), however the chance of someone dropping $180k on .fart is probably low...

So... (1)

eternaldoctorwho (2563923) | about 2 years ago | (#40158511)

Is Slashdot going to register .slash? That would be confusing...."Slash-Dot-Dot-Slash". But repeat it three times, and we'd get a lot more users signing up.

Or even worse: slashdot.dotslashdotdot.dotdotdot.dotslashdotdot.slashslashdot That URL would just be a cry for help.

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40158763)

.slash would be for very badly thought out fanfic.

Re:So... (1)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 years ago | (#40159105)

Or even worse: slashdot.dotslashdotdot.dotdotdot.dotslashdotdot.slashslashdot That URL would just be a cry for help.

Wouldn't slashslashslash.dotdotdot.slashslashslash be more of a cry for help?

73s

Re:So... (3, Funny)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 years ago | (#40159131)

Wouldn't slashslashslash.dotdotdot.slashslashslash be more of a cry for help?

oops... That's dotdotdot.slashslashslash.dotdotdot.. My bad..

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40163847)

Absolutely .. and, for added humour value, in more than one way!

Really is though, if you are 'dotting' (#2) after slashing (#1) that many times you really do have problems..

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40159769)

Is Slashdot going to register .slash? That would be confusing...."Slash-Dot-Dot-Slash". But repeat it three times, and we'd get a lot more users signing up.

Or even worse: slashdot.dotslashdotdot.dotdotdot.dotslashdotdot.slashslashdot That URL would just be a cry for help.

I don't understand. That's the original joke. Or did you completely miss why slashdot is named what it is?

Simple Program (3, Interesting)

bobbied (2522392) | about 2 years ago | (#40158659)

Simple solution to this problem is to first get NTP running on a Linux that is tied to a local GPS receiver and make sure it's running long enough to be stable (a few days). Start probing port 80 by opening TCP connections and record response times. Average the times. Divide by two and subtract that from the appointed time. You might want to subtract a bit more to account for the internal server delays. Write a small program that can hit the virtual "login" button at the calculated time. You should be able to get your "login" request to arrive at the destination very close to the right time if you are careful to get the TCP port opened and stable, then do the HTTP post/Get or what have you at the calculated time.

Want to be even more accurate? Find a server to do this on that is the least number of hops between you and the server, opting for the lowest latency links you can manage. But this just makes the calculations more sure, the problem remains the same.

Anybody trying to hit the "submit" button manually is going to loose..

Re:Simple Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40159033)

And all your elaborate and expensive plans will of course fail when the ICANN servers only record timestamps to within a second, and they end up just handing out the tlds randomly and telling everyone they used the timestamps.

Re:Simple Program (3, Interesting)

kermidge (2221646) | about 2 years ago | (#40159529)

Simple but non-trivial solution is to find some grown-ups to run ICANN. Find grown-ups to run ICANN who aren't greedy bastards might be more difficult.

Re:Simple Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40160055)

Try to be accurate. Greedy fat bastards.

Re:Simple Program (1)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | about 2 years ago | (#40176575)

Simple but non-trivial solution is to find some grown-ups to run ICANN.

Dude, you're putting a damper on our chances of naked mud wrestling champions representing bidders being sent to ICANN HQ to decide the domain lottery.

Re:Simple Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40161737)

Anybody trying to hit the "submit" button manually is going too loose.

FTFY.

Re:Simple Program (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40165527)

... and who audits this contest and the request log? exactly. if you're not paying you're not winning.

If someone snags .word (1)

Jailbrekr (73837) | about 2 years ago | (#40159069)

the domain "thebirdisthe" is ALL MINE SUCKERS.

Re:If someone snags .word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40159195)

If you're aiming for that demographic, you might want to consider
http://ItsyBitsyTeenyWeenyYellowPolka.bikini
as well.

Re:If someone snags .word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40159379)

Yea, everyone is complaining about gTLDs because it's unfair to businesses, it's confusing, it's a money grab, and on and on. I think everyone is missing the real evil that this is going to unleash upon us: endless shitty puns.

This is a convenient way to block large corps. (1)

xpatch (1188047) | about 2 years ago | (#40159671)

This is great, I can now block large corporations by blocking their tld.

I completely misunderstood this (1)

james_van (2241758) | about 2 years ago | (#40165055)

and at first glance assumed that it meant that ".word" was gonna be a tld. I got a little excited because I realized that I might be able to buy birdisthe.word, and I then I could put a clip of Peter Griffin singing "Surfin Bird" on repeat and send the link to my friends to annoy them. Then I reread the summary and was very disappointed.
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...