×

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!

Google Applies For Dot-LOL Domain

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the binary-code-of-ells-and-zeroes dept.

Google 125

judgecorp writes "Google has applied for the .lol domain in ICANN's sale of generic top level domains (gTLDs). Google also asked for .google, .docs, and .youtube at a cost of $185,000 each, in the round of applications which has finally closed. A glitch in the application system may have leaked some of the applicants' data to other applicants."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

125 comments

the problem is (5, Funny)

tian2992 (1690038) | about 2 years ago | (#40194659)

cats.lol does not have the same ring to it sadly...

Too bad they didn't apply for .cheezburger.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194977)

Then you could sign up for has.cheezburger, and set up a subdomain like can.has.cheezburger

Re:Too bad they didn't apply for .cheezburger.. (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195157)

ICANN.has.cheezburger

FTFY

Re:Too bad they didn't apply for .cheezburger.. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40196759)

Funniest one-worder. EVAR!

A virtual gold rush like Bitcoin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194685)

Waiting for the story where hackers break into the ICANN servers and steal 1000s of new domains.

I hope they don't get it (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194715)

I'm one of those people who is sorry to see the erosion of the TLD. It's bad enough that individuals are shut out of the process by the rules and absurd fees. But under the new rules Google has zero right to it. I hope they don't get it.

Re:I hope they don't get it (3, Insightful)

Amouth (879122) | about 2 years ago | (#40194815)

Agreed the rules/absurd fees associated with these are meant to force the smaller crowd out. the company i work for is small, but we are among the top in our field and i could see a TLD for several processes and standards that we have created and consult on over the years, but at 200k a pop we can't justify even one.

Re:I hope they don't get it (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#40194869)

Honestly, the TLD system has been broken for a long time. There should probably never have been TLDs without country codes, for one thing. And enforcement on TLDs that were supposed to be reserved for specific purposes was always lousy -- I remember seeing clearly commercial sites with .net TLDs popping up in the mid-90's.

Re:I hope they don't get it (3, Insightful)

TubeSteak (669689) | about 2 years ago | (#40195239)

It may have been broken, but at least it was understandable.
Between url shorteners and (now) vanity domains, who the fuck will really know where a link is taking them?

Re:I hope they don't get it (5, Insightful)

Ihmhi (1206036) | about 2 years ago | (#40195193)

It'll just turn out to be a massive waste of money.

Hell, you can even take your average user and have them look at a website... almost no one takes .biz, .info, .us seriously. .com, .net, and .org is where it's at.

Re:I hope they don't get it (1)

paxcoder (1222556) | about 2 years ago | (#40196203)

Maybe I'm uninformed on the matter, but if you ask me, they should drop top level domains altogether. Everyone has a .com. Few other things really "exist": .org + some popular at the moment (cc, ca, what have you). Imagine perhaps a blank global TLD, and make the trailing dot optional. Then make a distributed, global DNS system. Sit and wait till those with extensions fade to obscurity ("translating" them to new TLDs would also be an option). Let the bidding begin. Then after the dust from the auctions sets, make each new domain exponentially more costly to obtain. As to who gets the profits, depends on the implementation (server owners get it?). If the system is truly distributed, it could go towards feeding the world (Country that needs the money the most, by assesment of all other countries, gets it - so, start with African countries. We need such a system of charity anyway. Disclaimer: I haven't thought this through thoroughly, I'm just throwing it out there.

Re:I hope they don't get it (1)

nlitement (1098451) | about 2 years ago | (#40197175)

Then after the dust from the auctions sets, make each new domain exponentially more costly to obtain.

So basically what you're suggesting is something close to a pyramid scheme?

Great... (5, Insightful)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 2 years ago | (#40194721)

This just goes to show how flawed this system is. When a for profit corporation can "own" a non-trademark general use term as a TLD, it's a clear sign that the system is open to abuse.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194777)

It was already "owned" by a corporation (albeit a non-profit). The system is obviously flawed, but I don't know how this is suddenly a clear sign to anyone.

Re:Great... (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | about 2 years ago | (#40194929)

Firstly, I made the distinction between NFP and FP corporations. Secondly, I never said "suddenly". Admittedly, I should've made my point clearer and stated "another" sign that the system is open to abuse.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194791)

hmm. i was under the impression that only registered trademarks could be registered as a new custom tld..... which is still bad enough, but a free-for-all like this is horrible.

whatthe.fuck

Re:Great... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194803)

Is it really any different than granting full operation of .com to Verisign?

Re:Great... (1)

6ULDV8 (226100) | about 2 years ago | (#40194921)

Just wait for the free .google ot .lol domain rush. Yes it's open to abuse, but it always has been.

Re:Great... (3, Interesting)

a whoabot (706122) | about 2 years ago | (#40194937)

They don't own it; they don't even "own" it. Edit /etc/hosts and point "google.docs" whithersoever you wish. ICANN just own a list to which people subscribe. If you don't like their list, don't subscribe to it. They control nothing of importance in that capacity except what you let them control.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195273)

Yeah, good luck with that.

Re:Great... (3, Insightful)

fbjon (692006) | about 2 years ago | (#40195289)

Controlling the defaults is a lot of control, even if it is nothing like complete control. Internet Explorer tells the story.

Re:Great... (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195347)

A few problems...
  • I have windows. What is /etc/hosts?
  • I have a mac. Isn't that in dscl something something?
  • I have iOS. My ass is pWNed by Apple.

I could continue. /etc/hosts may provide you with a local override, but it does nothing for discovery. It does nothing for managing changes to IP addresses. The DNS design is just broken from a "decentralized net" point of view. I think the only way we'll get a new system is if the EU succeeds in totally fucking it up and create their own DNS (with blackjack and hookers).

Re:Great... (0)

slimjim8094 (941042) | about 2 years ago | (#40195503)

Windows: %SystemRoot%\system32\drivers\etc\hosts
Mac: /etc/hosts (it's just Unix, although /etc is a symlink to /private/etc)
iOS: See above, since iOS is OSX on ARM.

Not disagreeing with your premise, but the point is that every OS has the ability to do this. That's even disregarding the ability to run your own DNS server with whatever you want.

Re:Great... (2)

nmb3000 (741169) | about 2 years ago | (#40195517)

I have windows. What is /etc/hosts?

C:\Windows\System32\drivers\etc\hosts

Unfortunately that is also the arcane spell to summon APK -- get away while you still can!

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195785)

Yep, and you'll be the one person on Earth with a different configuration than everyone else.

Stop acting like this is a solution.

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195865)

It's not "just a list". The Domain Name System is useless if you suggest people simply "don't subscribe to it".

Re:Great... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40196837)

I learned a new word today: whithersoever. I'm gonna use it everywheresoever!

Captcha: billions. That's how many times I will use it.

Re:Great... (3, Interesting)

cultiv8 (1660093) | about 2 years ago | (#40194961)

If lol was used historically on usenet [wikipedia.org] , and Google owns Usenet [google.com] , then couldn't Google claim ownership of it? Interestingly, AOL tried to trademarke LOL [uspto.gov] in 2003 but never filed a use statement...

Re:Great... (4, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195511)

If lol was used historically on usenet [wikipedia.org] , and Google owns Usenet [google.com] , then couldn't Google claim ownership of it? Interestingly, AOL tried to trademarke LOL [uspto.gov] in 2003 but never filed a use statement...

Google doesn't own Usenet, they bought Deja News (a Usenet provider). No one can own Usenet, any more than one can own the Internet. It's a decentralized service, and functions almost exactly like the Internet in general, with peers sharing posts between eachother... That's why I can subscribe to a giganews account and my posts still show up in Google's usenet service.

Re:Great... (3, Interesting)

mounthood (993037) | about 2 years ago | (#40195009)

This just goes to show how flawed this system is. When a for profit corporation can "own" a non-trademark general use term as a TLD, it's a clear sign that the system is open to abuse.

Money and lawyers are the traditional tools for dealing with contention. Would it be better if we pushed all DNS disputes through the (US?) trademark system? It would be great if there were a technical solution but that doesn't seem to exist. If we use IP addresses without DNS names it would only make memorable/easy IP ranges the issue of contention (and 42.42.42.42 is already taken.) So, just like email addresses, the naming scheme won't change until we completely replace the system with something new -- and maybe not even then.

A tangent: a co-op style domain system would be interesting. Buy a TLD like "*.commons" to run it. Let anyone in and have a member voting system to resolve disputes (think ugly-but-functional Wikipedia politics). Give the names away free, with the use of a TLD wide SSL cert, or setup self-signing for name holders. A network effect could make it viable, and donations could pay for root servers.

Re:Great... (2)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | about 2 years ago | (#40195095)

You could move to namecoin. (Not trolling, I swear.)

Re:Great... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195359)

Yeah, but to make namecoin work... you need a co-op run .bit TLD (or someone with fat stacks of cash running it as a benevolent dictator, or whatever); else people have to run fragmented DNSes using a non-official TLD (and hoping nobody buys that TLD from ICANN, or mass confusion), or apply some longer suffix (such as namecoin-suffix.dot-bit.org)

Re:Great... (1)

icebraining (1313345) | about 2 years ago | (#40195049)

Uh, Google just applied for it, ICANN still hasn't made a decision, so we have no idea if a corporation "can own a non-trademark general use term as a TLD".

So who has applied for (4, Funny)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#40194739)

.WTF and .OMG

Re:So who has applied for (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194893)

.W00T, .L33T, .LMAO

Re:So who has applied for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40197041)

.FOO and .BAR

Pfff! .NOOBS !

.docs? (1)

anilg (961244) | about 2 years ago | (#40194813)

I think Microsoft may have something to say about that. Is there an auction for a domain that two or more parties want? Is there anyway that Apple could bid on (and win) .google?

Re:.docs? (4, Funny)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | about 2 years ago | (#40194829)

Microsoft should be perfectly happy with their ownership of .crash, .virus, and .bsod.

Re:.docs? (0, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194881)

I wonder if Apple applied for .elitistsimpletons

Re:.docs? (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195007)

you could apply for .troll

Re:.docs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194837)

Not for something that is trademarked. If there's a trademark then the trademark owner gets dibs.

If there's no trademark and it's not a domain that will cause confusion, the domain goes to the highest bidder.

Re:.docs? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195355)

So the beetles could get .apple?

"No, Mr. Ellison, Google does not run Oracle.LOL (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194821)

Although some of our engineers may have posted content to it during their 20 percent time. And we don't keep records on everyone who has contributed anonymously to the section on "Larry's Management Style."

BTW the domain is for sale! We'd be happy to sell it to you. The price is 1 billion USD.

Saw a cat do this once (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194863)

I can haz domain?

Redundant (4, Funny)

Hentes (2461350) | about 2 years ago | (#40194917)

Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.

Re:Redundant (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195029)

The should have gone for .oogle, then the obvious g.oogle.

Re:Redundant (3, Interesting)

rgbrenner (317308) | about 2 years ago | (#40195051)

Changing their address to google.google is a bit redundant.

well, yes,.. that would be stupid. But luckily there are other words in the dictionary

search.google
docs.google
shopping.google
mail.google
images.google

Re:Redundant (4, Informative)

houghi (78078) | about 2 years ago | (#40195079)

Or just gooogle. Once you own the TLD, you do not have to use domains. You just use the TLD.

Just like they now use google.com and www.google.com

Re:Redundant (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about 2 years ago | (#40196875)

Or just gooogle.

Given the price I think even Google didn't apply for that name. Or any of the other misspellings:

www.gooogle.com
www.gogle.com

At $185000 a pop that's a lot to cover stupid users.

Re:Redundant (1)

IAmGarethAdams (990037) | about 2 years ago | (#40195379)

But search.google, mail.google, news.google and code.google isn't redundant. It's maybe *pointless* when users are used to mail.google.com and news.google.com, especially when they still haven't gotten rid of the redundant `www.` from their main URL

Very appropriate... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194933)

...as the company has become a fucking joke.

Let me introduce you to the top assholes at Google:

  • - Vic Gundotra : The asshole who ruined Google+ by insisting on his moronic Real Names policy.
  • - Sundar Pichai: The utter asshole whose incompetence has resulted in the shutdown of Google's Atlanta office.
  • - David Drummond: Chief Legal Asshole and author of the creepy privacy policy.
  • - Andy Rubin: Another huge asshole. A hypocrite who puts carriers first and users last. An imbecile who brags about Android's openness while keeping all development behind close doors.
  • - Ben Treynor: The very definition of arrogant asshole. Threatened Dell not to buy anymore hardware from them and then it turned out it was Google who hadn't signed the support contracts. Did he ever apologized for his 'arrogant asshole' behavior? Of course not!

--

I care about my privacy, so I NEVER use any product made by the arrogant Google assholes.

Re:Very appropriate... (-1, Offtopic)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#40195271)

- who sat at gun point forcing you to enter your real name lie dumb ass this is the internet

- they shut down an office big deal, and? what is so horrible about that unless you worked there in which case you come across as a bitter ass

- oh horrible they wanted a one privacy policy acrross all of their holdings

- so they develop their code behind closed doors and then rellease it to the public under a open source licence. so did gnu it is called cathedral method of open source development, you like the bizzare method better fork it.

- have no clue what the hell you are trolling about here but it sounds like you need to get back on you meds

I think someone should apply for .sucks (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40194967)

Could be a best-selling TLD

Re:I think someone should apply for .sucks (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195851)

Somebody with money seems to agree:

http://voxpopregistry.com/

Goodbye, useful metadata (4, Interesting)

Narrowband (2602733) | about 2 years ago | (#40195013)

I wonder at what point gTLDs are going to make it harder to recognize a URL when it comes up in text. Right now, I expect it's not too hard to write code that identifies a URL as a URL and sets up a link. But when my website name can be AUTOEXEC.BAT, things might get a bit different.

Re:Goodbye, useful metadata (1)

lostfayth (1184371) | about 2 years ago | (#40195275)

That's a problem with a solution, URIs (and usually, context as well) manage to differentiate perfectly there. Otherwise, COMMAND.COM would be a much bigger problem than AUTOEXEC.BAT.

Pounds not dollars (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195047)

From the article, it is 185,000 pounds, not dollars. Which means Google payed even more money to submit the .lol domain (more like $285,000).

whitehouse.lol ? :) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195313)

whitehouse.lol, I'm soooooooooooooooooooooo there...

Google can apply for whatever they want (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195739)

I suspect that Google wish that gTLDs did not exist, but ICANN's profiteering has forced their hand - it would be ridiculous for them to not claim .google, for example. .lol seems like a combination of an inside joke and a possible business venture - they can probably get their $185,000 back for it from a third party if they wish.

In my opinion, the gTLDs is the strongest possible argument for letting another organisation govern the internet. ICANN are making the owners of coke.com, pepsi.com and tens of thousands of other similar names pay through the nose for something that does not need to exist. The only real beneficiary is ICANN. It's greedy and it's wrong.

Ironically, Google decides the importance of gTLDs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195813)

If Google chooses to give a heavy weighting towards sites that use gTLDs, then the sites will become immensely valuable. OTOH, if Google decide that gTLDs are essentially ICANN spam, they will be dead in the water.

Given that Google has only applied for four, when they could have budgeted for hundreds or even thousands, my guess is that .com will continue to be the top dog for the foreseeable future.

screw TLD's (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40195887)

we should just have a directory of IP's mapped to names and anybody can use any name they want but they have to pay for an IP.

Simple really, not as big bucks but simple and will work. What ever happend to alternative directory systems?

This is just a yanky farce. The yanks always fuck up everything they touch.

They fucked up he internet now too. Give it to the UN, where it belongs.

my dns server will not look up these new TLDs (0)

OrangeTide (124937) | about 2 years ago | (#40196097)

I have already worked out the configs so that these silly TLDs cannot be used on my network.

mo3 Down (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40196253)

copy a 17 Meg file been sitting he8e errors. Future I NetBSD posts on ransom for their Fun to be again.

Just .lol? (1)

saikou (211301) | about 2 years ago | (#40196631)

Shouldn't they also ask for .ioi, .101 and .l0l? :)
While having a whole TLD dedicated to trolling Google seems unlikely, I can see someone getting .ioi for "legitimate" reasons and then offering .lol domain owners to buy the same ones, or suffer from links to ".IOI" :\

onion (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#40197063)

With things like this, i want to file for the .onion TLD

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>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...