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!

ICANN Backflips Again

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the dance-for-me dept.

The Internet 94

angry tapir writes "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has backflipped again on the process for evaluating applications for new generic top-level domains such as .bank and .lol. The proposal to evaluate applications in batches of 500 had been subject to criticism from registrars, particularly the 'digital archery' component, which would be used to determine which batch an application would be part of. Last month, ICANN scrapped digital archery altogether, and now ICANN has announced that it will seek simultaneous processing of all applications. The reason people were annoyed at the batching process was it meant that even if an application for a new domain was complete and correct, and even if a domain application was not contested by anyone else, it could end up going live years after other new TLDs did. Given it will cost over a couple of hundred grand to run a new TLD, people were upset. The whole gTLD process has been fraught with delays and security breaches."

cancel ×

94 comments

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

Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825347)

Goodbye internet!

It was fun while it lasted. I will happily await the arrival of your replacement, just as BBS/Gopher/eWorld/AOL had its time apparently you've had yours as well. It's truly sad to see your demise brought about by a bunch of fucking monkeys who couldn't care less about your well being, so long as they're making more money off stupid shit nobody wants or needs.

Who's up for a nice cryptographically secure distributed DNS system that runs over IPv6?

-AC

Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. (2)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825657)

DNS is not the Internet.

Re:Oh well, it was fun while it lasted. (1)

Enonu (129798) | more than 2 years ago | (#40829815)

As part of the requirements for the new TLDs, DNS must support DNSSEC and IPv6 from day 1. It ups the standard of DNS quality across the entire Internet, and puts pressure on the TLDs which aren't up to date yet.

It just shouldn't happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825391)

This shit is going to break the internet.

fraught with shit (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825403)

The gTLD & friends is just another corporate bs to make money. It makes zero sense, makes things only worse BUT HEY u have to buy it.
Oh noes! Googles gets .search! Well too bad. Nobody else will ever make a search engine then. And it goes on and on.
Don't forget that you need the 200K to have your .mybrand and that ofc, it will in general be more than that (unless your brand is .zoedklfdo or another random string).

Thanks ICANN for being scumbags. I swear, so what?

You probably saw this coming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825423)

Why does ICANN backflip all the time?

Because ICANN.

Re:You probably saw this coming (1)

somersault (912633) | more than 2 years ago | (#40827715)

When doing a backflip, you end up in the same place, generally in the same spot (if you have good technique). If they did this with a flip, it would have been an Arabian, not a backflip.

HAND.

ICANN Backflips (3, Funny)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825471)

What do they want, a medal?

Re:ICANN Backflips (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825487)

just beat me to it man! Mind you, I have nothing to add to this post, that 1000 "I told you so"s haven't done already in the past year .

Re:ICANN Backflips (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825501)

...other than to say, this crashdot forum/threading system (for want of a better term), is THE worst I've ever had to read on a regular basis! Don't even get me started on the smartphone 'formatting'...GOD I miss Usenet *sigh*...

Re:ICANN Backflips (2)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825693)

What do they want, a medal?

Nah, it's just... being for the benefit of Mr. Kite.

1st TLD post!!! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825479)

:)

ICANN'T (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825517)

ICANN'T make a decision and hold to it.

Dumb idea (5, Informative)

girlintraining (1395911) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825521)

ICANN apparently can't solve one of the most basic object oriented programming problems: Namespace organization and integrity.

There's only a couple of organizational schemes that make sense; Geographical, topical, and organizational. Of those, the third was the first used: Separating domains on the basis of their function; educational, commercial, non-commercial, and governmental. Then we tried to launch geographical, which meant that agents within the system would need to register on both basis; You'd have, for example, usairforce.gov, and airforce.us. But then ICANN botched big-time; they tried to organize based on... er, nothing. Rather than a couple hundred nodes on the root, you now have effectively an infinite number of roots.

The results were predictable: Complete and total chaos as everyone tried to register every possible permutation of trademarks, organization names, governments -- and although the cost of running a gTLD was in the tens to hundreds of thousands of dollars (which, itself, seems rather retarded; Why does adding a name to a file containing a list cost a hundred grand?) -- there are literally hundreds of thousands of organizations and individuals with the desire and cash to do so.

And they all threw their money at the problem at the same time. Now they're stuck because there's hundreds of millions sunk into the program, and they can't go back on the process. It's a bureaucratic cluster-fuck beyond even what our most inept governmental organizations can do.

At this point, the entire DNS system should be scrapped and start over from scratch. But that won't happen for years and years. Eventually though, it'll have to happen... when it does, I hope they pick one organizational scheme and stick to it.

Re:Dumb idea (1)

c0lo (1497653) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825563)

At this point, the entire DNS system should be scrapped and start over from scratch. But that won't happen for years and years. Eventually though, it'll have to happen... when it does, I hope they pick one organizational scheme and stick to it.

Maybe something that roots in .bit or .p2p?

Re:Dumb idea (-1, Offtopic)

sticktoll (2697379) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826341)

Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com/ [replicawatches007.com]

Re:Dumb idea (1)

fa2k (881632) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831629)

Thanks for bringing those up, I had forgotten about them. I would have modded you up, but .bit and .p2p don't really solve the namespace problem, they just allow a different organisation (or none) to control DNS. Anyway, really cool. Here's a link to .bit, http://dot-bit.org/Main_Page [dot-bit.org] . The .p2p site seems to be down.

Re:Dumb idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825565)

But that won't happen for years and years

You accidentally misspelled "that won't happen EVER".

Re:Dumb idea (1)

TheRealMindChild (743925) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825711)

(which, itself, seems rather retarded; Why does adding a name to a file containing a list cost a hundred grand?)

Because, else, you would have bots registering domains for squatting, at the cheapest price offered. Since it is a race to the bottom without some sort of oversight, this is the way that keeps you from having to register myawesomecompany93282.com

Re:Dumb idea (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825875)

Exactly.
So now only the registrars itself are able to effectively register for free, due to gaps in the regulation.
Ever noticed that it's practically impossible to enter a 3-4 character .com domainname without hitting on one of those placeholder ad-ridden pages that offer the domain for sale?

Re:Dumb idea (1)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826023)

We're talking about gTLDs, so wouldn't it be com.myawesomecompany93282?

(On a related note: What is the point, anyway, of registering a gTLD unless you're going to run an absolutely massive number of domains inside it? I can sort of see this happening for MS, Apple and Google; maybe Facebook. Nobody else, really.)

Re:Dumb idea (1)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831049)

Well if you register the right one it could be a malware guy's wet dream. lets say you register .cpm or .cim, many people can slip up and mistype that and more importantly how many Joe Average are gonna notice that single letter typo in a link?

So then you have Microsoft.cpm, Adobe.cpm, Amazon.cpm, see where this is going? It'd also be a good way to extort some cash out of legit businesses, such as "hey I bet you don't want us using Washingtonstate.cum for college porn do ya? Well we'll be happy to sell the domain to ya, right decent price too!"

Frankly this whole thing just stinks and is gonna end up a big fucking mess all around. This is why we can't have nice things, greed takes a whiz on it every time.

Re:Dumb idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826205)

ICANN apparently can't solve one of the most basic object oriented programming problems: Namespace organization and integrity.

However, they have solved wonderfully well one of the most basic business problems: making a profit.

Re:Dumb idea (1)

dodobh (65811) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826837)

There's only one root. A lot of domains under that root.

However, they should just have made this open and cheap from the get go. Trademarks and other such things could have been limited to the ccTLDs only.

Re:Dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826933)

You left out an important factor: Domains names are worth money. A lot of money. Some of them an obscene amount of money, more than you'll likely earn in your lifetime. Anywhere such money changes hands, there will be conflicts and legal issues.

Re:Dumb idea (1)

aix tom (902140) | more than 2 years ago | (#40830563)

Great. Things "worth a lot of money" that one entity practically can create from thin air.

I wonder that that will do to currency stability.

Re:Dumb idea (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40830353)

There's only a couple of organizational schemes that make sense; Geographical, topical, and organizational. Of those, the third was the first used: Separating domains on the basis of their function; educational, commercial, non-commercial, and governmental.

On hindsight, that was not the wisest decision. It would have been better to ONLY use the geographical system. That would have meant no com, net and org.

What about things like linux.org, you might ask? Well, when I look at the whois page, I see an american address. So it would have been linux.us or if the country would have wanted: linux.org.us

Thise who want availability in more then one country can go to each country, just like they do now. Each country would be able to decide what they do with their domain, just like they do now. e.g.:Do they accept people from other countries or not?

It is hindsight, so nothing we can do about it now.

If they ever decide to start all over from 0, it would be nice that they start with the toplevel and not end with it. That would mean you would not have http://www.example.com/directory/file.html [example.com] , but rather something like http://us/example/www/directory/file.txt [us] (and even allow http:\\us\example\www\directory\file.html
Sure, it might look strange as we are not used to it, but it is more logical.

Re:Dumb idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40831591)

You'r right; but there is an answer. Top-level domains should be managed by jurisdictions, who can set their own rules. You want something.edu.us? Prove you are an accredited educational institution in the US? Dispute over who owns something.co.us? Use the US courts. And so on.

Want a jurisdiction that has a free-for-all (and hence no trust)? Go ahead, use a small country that doesn't care to set rules.

It doesn't serve ICANN greed, but it does serve the customer base.

can this problem really be that hard to figure out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825549)

don't the people at icann get paid to deal with shit like this?

.assclown (4, Funny)

techoi (1435019) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825551)

I only hope that ICANN was able to register .assclown for themselves. Anyone else getting it would be unfair.

Re:.assclown (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825787)

I only hope that ICANN was able to register .assclown for themselves. Anyone else getting it would be unfair.

Not so fast. Several politicians and corporate C?O's have a vested interest in that TLD.

Re:.assclown (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826489)

Someone with a spare 100k lying around should register .ICANNSUCKS and see what happens.
Better yet, Kickstarter it so you can throw a big fuss about it.

Re:.assclown (1)

icebraining (1313345) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836093)

It's ~200k, and what would happen is that they'd deny your application for violating the rules and keep the money (yes, the money is a fee for the review, not a payment for keeping the gTLD).

Disband ICANN (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825599)

The whole thing is clearly a joke. ICANN should just disband; they're unfit to do their job, or any job in fact.

This is getting stupid. (3, Insightful)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825689)

We all know the new top-level domains (and some of the existing top-level domains) are basically a money grab and a way to force people to pay as many times as possible for their name.

And the registrar system, which supposedly enables competition, is also just a money grab. For each top-level domain we have one registry, which is a simple database run by one organisation, but then we have a whole lot of commercial infrastructure and multiple companies around it which serve no purpose except to skim profits off the top.

Now the problems with the new TLD registration process are starting to make ICANN and the domain industry look incompetent as well as greedy, for those of us who hadn't decided that was the case already.

So, what can we do? I know it's been suggested and unsuccessfully tried before, but is it time someone replaced ICANN?

People keep suggesting decentralised DNS, but I'm not convinced it's a workable solution. If there's no central authority controlling the DNS, there's nobody who can give your domain back when someone breaks into your system and steals it, or when you accidentally lose your crypto keys.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

louarnkoz (805588) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825845)

ICANN was supposed to managed the legacy of Jon Postel. Instead, it is managing the interests of a coterie of Internet parasites. As the parent said, "the new top-level domains (and some of the existing top-level domains) are basically a money grab," effectively allowing the new registrars to levy taxes on trademark owners. Good old fashion blackmail, as in "nice trademark you have here, you would not want something bad to happen, like having it managed by a porn site or a competitor, what about getting some protection?"

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825873)

and a way to force people to pay as many times as possible for their name.

Force?

Imagine that Coca-Cola did not register .cocacola. Instead, some time in the future, Pepsi registered it and started operating drink.cocacola with a CNAME to pepsi.com.

Coca-Cola would then pay a couple of hundred dollars for a UDRP decision to tell Pepsi to cease.

Coca-Cola could do that about 9,000 times before they even match the starting price of registering a gTLD.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825985)

I suppose the fear would be that coke's namespace would be taken not by a competitor they could sue and recoup their losses. Rather, I think the fear is that some individual who would use it for spam or viruses, and this individual would be difficult and expensive to track down and haul to court. And even if they were, they wouldn't have enough money in the piggy bank to make it right.

That's what I'm guessing the fear is, that some grandmother will go to coke.coke and get a virus and switch to pepsi forever. I think it's probably paranoia, but it's still a disadvantage to this. Meanwhile, there don't seem to be any advantages to outweigh it.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1, Funny)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826131)

People keep suggesting decentralised DNS, but I'm not convinced it's a workable solution.

DNS isn't strictly required to access websites on the web, except for its use in the host header which helps apache pick which virtual host to serve up to you.

HOW TO MAKE ICANN IRRELEVENT:

1. Google (or Bing, or both) begins by indexing the current system (they most likely already have)

2. Google tweakes their engine so that people can go to the google homepage (http://74.125.237.129 for example - out of many, which could easily be saved as a favourite in any browser), enter their search, and google results link to a google program that constructs the http request (with the "host" header based on their index saved from step 1) for you without using the DNS. clicking google search results already go through google anyway.

3. whala! going through google (or Bing) doesn't require the DNS any more

4. eventually rather than depending on search engines for connection to websites, the w3c might sit up and take notice, and build in some kind of URL addendum, such as http://100.100.100.100//myvirtualhost/index.html [100.100.100.100] (two slashes between ip address and host name)

5. browsers conforming to such new scheme eventually being able to navigate to websites directly without the DNS.

6. decentralised internet is born! (based on a technologically enforced addressing system - so no need to worry about squatters or people stealing your address)

ok so now addresses are a little longer and harder to remember, but just as phone books have been around for years already, internet directories will have a resurgence (until someone comes up with some new fancy means of accessing or identifying things)

also doesn't require regulatory reform or permission/agreement from ICANN

wouldn't that burst ICANN's (and the US government who ultimately governs it) bubble?

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826159)

Oh yes, and that would be wonderful!

And i would be logging into my bank account at https://132.93.82.12
Or maybe at https://31.124.92.6

How can you ever tell if this is your real bank or a fake site?

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826185)

how can you currently tell if http://mybank.com/ [mybank.com] is really your real bank?

you just know that it is because you trust the identifyer (mybank.com)

just as if you contacted your bank (or pinged mybank.com before abandoning the DNS) you would be able to find out a trustworthy IP address

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826275)

You know you can trust mybank.com because it's a memorable name and you've used it before. And once you know mybank.com, you know that subdomains like accounts.mybank.com or invest.mybank.com or whatever also belong to your bank.

It's not so easy to remember your bank's IP address, and it's impossible to tell whether an IP address you haven't seen before belongs to them or not.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826459)

that's the reason why there's favourites/bookmarks in your browser

how many people remember all their friends phone numbers? answer is they don't. they add contacts in their phones

but hey if you don't mind relying on asscann or have a better idea, be my guest. i'm certainly not holding a gun

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#40828259)

So when my bank moves their web servers from one data center to another for whatever reason, every single customer has to be informed to update their shortcuts.

And when someone else gets assigned the old IP addresses and also puts up a copy of the bank web site on them it's the customers fault for clicking on an old link, right?

When I change my phone service provider I move my phone number along with me, precisely so that the people I know don't have to update their address books. But you want a bank to inform all their customers of each change and have all of them keep their address books up to date at all times?

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40861735)

When I change my phone service provider I move my phone number along with me

but not automatically. you have to contact your phone service provider so they can switch it over in their system (unless you're talking about a mobile)

banks contact their customers all the time for all sorts of reasons (change to policy, bank statements, offers, etc), so mass mailing every customer regarding a change of URL would not be a big deal. there is also email, sms and various other ways to contact customers to ensure they don't mistakenly use the old IP address. also, i doubt an IP address previously used by a bank would be given up so soon (just because they move their server infrastructure doesn't mean they lose control of the old infrastructure, and a bank would retain old IP addresses for quite some time i would think due to regulatory requirements concerning privacy and security - remember the DNS isn't the most secure system either)

surely you can come up a better excuse for kissing ICANN's ass

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826313)

Go to your bank office IRL, ask them for a crypto key, sign it. Now when your bank is talking to you, ask them to sign with this key. If they don't, don't trust them.

Re:This is getting stupid. (2)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826243)

This idea has many problems:

You can't change your ISP, or renumber your network, or move your website to a different server on your network, or switch to IPv6, without making all existing links to your site invalid.

A link can only point to a specific IP, not to a website that has multiple redundant servers with different public IPs, or a website with both IPv4 and IPv6 support.

Anyone can create a site like (for example) http://203.0.113.135//westpac.com [203.0.113.135] , and no user can distinguish it from the 'real' westpac.com without consulting some authority. This makes phishing easy.

Also, I think you underestimate the importance of being able to remember a site's address and tell people what it is. Even ICANN is better than having to look up a directory of IP addresses manually.

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826509)

you can use a trusted reliable and stable proxy server. if there aren't any, they would appear if there were a demand for them

but in any case i have had the same residential IP address for 10 years, so i imagine a commercial web host wouldn't have the need to change IP addresses very regularly, and if they did changing IP addresses wouldn't be as much a problem as changing domain names, because customers wouldn't identify/remember you by your IP address, so IP addresses don't have the same corporate image importance as domain names

dead links wouldn't be a huge problem because the only links you would need to maintain are with the major search engines anyway. there may be a few other places where website links are shared (such as in facebook), but if someone wants to look up your company there is always google/bing/etc (including web directories that would begin to appear like phone books for the web).

if the web contains dead links from spammers or banner ad pages or link farms or whatever, who cares? dead links have always existed, and they are the reason why the web has become less link-driven and more search-driven. for pages like wikipedia with external links, or if your website has a links page to external sites, there should be a process in place to regularly check the links anyway because even links with DNS addresses can change without notice, so if you aren't diligent enough to keep on top of IP address-based links, you probably aren't adept enough to keep on top of DNS-based links or manage a web site at all

also, there may be a perceived need for DNS, but its not a technical one. if people like using DNS they are free to do so, but if it all came to a grinding halt one day (most likely due to ICANN's gross incompetence) or there is a revolt of the people against ICANN/DNS, there is a possible way to become relieved of their stupidity.

there may be "many problems", but they are hypothetical and social, not technical hurdles.
my point was merely that the technical feasibility to break free of ICANN exists in the hands of google and bing. whether you want to lobby them to make the change is entirely up to you :)

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826729)

Why don't you use capital letters to begin sentences? Not a big deal, just curious.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826929)

i'm lazy. good enough? also, i think spelling is more important than capitalization of web forums, and hopefully i don't make too many smelling mistaks

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

Raenex (947668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40828569)

spelling is more important than capitalization of web forums

If you're going to be writing anything more than one sentence long, capitals are very helpful to the reader. It's just a matter of convention that helps break up the text. Personally, I tend to skip over posts that don't use caps as I find them annoying to read.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40834967)

I find them annoying to read

dammit you stumbled on the real reason why i do it :)

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40830569)

i'm lazy. good enough? also, i think spelling is more important than capitalization of web forums, and hopefully i don't make too many smelling mistaks

Explanation accepted. However, I think you could make a more professional appearance by doing capitalization.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40835003)

i get paid to be professional for 40 hours a week. when i get home usually the last thing i'm thinking about is being professional

if you want to pay me to be professional on slashdot, i'll start capitalizing sentences

after all, its pretty hard for someone to be considered professional if they aren't paid :)

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 2 years ago | (#40831459)

If you're not going to talk the tiny effort to press the shift key, how valuable can your contribution be? I'm lazy, but gees, too lazy to press one damned key is absurd.

I have to agree with the other respondent to your comment. You're disrespectful of those reading your comments.

As to "smelling mistaks", everyone makes mistakes, but not capitalizing is a deliberate act of willful negligence and shows an awful lot of immaturity. Grow the fuck up, boy.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40835033)

how valuable can your contribution be

if you value contribution based on capitalization, then how much can i possibly give a rats about how much you value my contribution?

signed: willfully negligent disrespectful immature boy

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

jibjibjib (889679) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836387)

> dead links wouldn't be a huge problem because the only links you would need to maintain are with the major search engines anyway

Seriously? The great innovation of hypertext was that websites can link to each other, and it's used all the time. Slashdot itself is a pretty good example. Almost every site, not just search engines and Facebook, has links to other domains on it.

If you remove the ability for websites to link to one another reliably, you kill the web. I am not exaggerating.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40861835)

If you remove the ability for websites to link to one another reliably, you kill the web

based on your assumption, the web would already be dead (it would never have come "alive" in the first place), because DNS doesn't enforce the integrity or reliability of third party hyperlinks, which is why the web is already full of dead links

there are many cases where URLs are stable within the DNS, but its not really because of the DNS itself

many external links from websites need to be regularly checked and updated, so while removing DNS from the equation wouldn't make that better, it wouldn't make it any worse either

the only advantage of DNS in maintaing links is in the use of stable domains like wikipedia or slashdot, which you wouldn't expect to change and would likely work unmaintained for years, although these stable websites probably also don't need to regularly change IP addresses either (even if they physically relocate), so their stability would still be assured based on IP addressing (as much as any address, DNS or IP, can be "assured" anyway)

Re:This is getting stupid. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40828575)

That's the dumbest shit I've ever heard.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | more than 2 years ago | (#40835065)

is that you ICANN?

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837101)

One doesn't need to be ICANN to think your idea is stupid. One just needs to be sane.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40861863)

was there anything in my op that was factually incorrect? just because you may not like the idea of not using DNS doesn't make it stupid or insane, but maybe its just because dumbshits like you don't even comprehend the idea in the original post and are merely criticizing my ability to dumb it down to your level of understanding

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

Kalriath (849904) | about 2 years ago | (#40865513)

Not factually incorrect, just fucking stupid. Your idea takes power away from a non-profit oriented organisation and concentrates it in the hands of several profit oriented corporations. Then, for bonus points, it introduces several inherent security vulnerabilities, a gigantic namespace collision fault, and a violation of the HTML specification. It also relies on people being able to remember the IP addresses of every site they ever visit, or to rely on a profit oriented search engine to remember it for them (which, by the way, will simply result in the creation of a system whereby IP numbers are translated into easily memorable names. Let's call it "Domain Name System", and then centralise it with redundancy for safety reasons, and then we'll hand control of it to some organisation who exists solely for the purpose - perhaps the "Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers").

Dumb it down all you like... actually, don't bother. The idea's dumb enough already.

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40892971)

wow! do you over react like this to everything? i feel sorry for you

i could pick apart your bullshit piece by piece, but i fear i may cause you to have an aneurysm

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40893017)

actually why not.. i eagerly await your aneurysm

concentrates it in the hands of several profit oriented corporations

last time i checked profit driven competition was kind of the back bone of western economies, so privatisation of a simple internet addressing scheme won't cause total chaos and anarchy. also, google and bing are already the primary internet addressing system for most internet users anyway. to by far most users, nothing would change.

a gigantic namespace collision fault

really!? this almost made me laugh. unfortunately your bullshit was kinda overshadowed by the fact that IP addresses and virtual host names are the infrastructure underneath the DNS already. if there were any (even remote) possibility of any kind of collision as a result of the use of IP addresses and virtual host names, the internet would already be fucked.

people being able to remember the IP addresses of every site they ever visit, or to rely on a profit oriented search engine to remember it for them

except that people already use favourites and search engines. how many internet users do you think remember any DNS addresses beyond google.com, facebook.com and goatse.cx? maybe their bank address if they are really security conscious (though I would bet that many have a favorite for that too). have you looked at the URLs of many pages and sites on the net lately? much of the web is driven by CMSs, with a myriad of GET and POST parameters. to get to this thread for example, I would have to remember "http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3015393". pfft! yeah right. maybe you can remember jibberish like that, but most would have better luck remembering their social security number. how many people remember all their mates phone numbers? what about passwords? do you really think that internet users are so inept that they wouldn't be able to figure out to use any new numerical internet addressing system? you are truly a moron

ICANN isn't a non-profit organisation. all they care about is profit.

all you seem to care about is sounding like the dipshit that you are

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40893061)

also how the hell do you figure my idea would be a violation of the HTML spec?

all google would be doing is constructing valid http requests based on an index of IP addresses and virtual host names

do you even know what a http request looks like? try websniffer.net

the bit about eventually changing the URL scheme was actually a proposal to eventually revise the HTML spec. it is unlikely that browser vendors (except maybe microsoft) would ever support non-standard URL schemes

and the "inherent security vulnerabilities" that got lost in the rest of your bullshit... i can't even think of what you might be trying to get at there. maybe phishing, but that already happens; phishing an IP address would be no more plausible than phishing http://login.mybank.com.dfh.it/ [com.dfh.it] (probably less plausible actually because of increased difficulty in getting a similar IP address to the target). i would be interested to hear your explanation :)

Re:This is getting stupid. (1)

crutchy (1949900) | about 2 years ago | (#40893081)

websniffer.net

obviously i mean web-sniffer.net
perfect example of the fallability of DNS right there

Digital archery? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825697)

I read about how "digital archery" was supposed to work. If I had read it out of context, I'd have assumed it was some sort of parody or April Fool's joke.

what a joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825699)

I mean seriously, the only people opposed to this are fucking prudes.

Meanwhile, here's where the REAL PIRACY is, not the fucking bullshit your corrupt murdering agenda 21 officials are pushing.

Elk Grove residents indicted for trafficking in counterfeit DVDs
http://blogs.sacbee.com/crime/archives/2012/07/elk-grove-residents-indicted-for-trafficking-in-counterfeit-dvds.html

So why do we need fucking high capacity gun ammunition clip laws stuffed into copyright laws? So you can get mauled by that bear with only 5 shots in your god damn M1 Carbine? No 30 round clips?

Our govt. just snuck a "magazine" amendment into a motherfucking bill, that hasn't yet passed

What the fuck, there's criminals running shit.

Re:what a joke (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825733)

I mean, hell I want the gun for fucking defense against psychopaths, but seriously seriously, do you want to watch as that black bear is running at 35 MPH though the fucking Manzanita bush right at you while you only have 5 rounds? What if you miss? What if it's running at your children in the camp? Maybe your rifle has a scope and that fucking bear is too far inrange?

Yeah the fucking gun ban lobby has got your back. Don't worry they're putting park rangers out in the boonies now. Patrolling essentially nothing but dumb fucking hunters who cross their path

You can't shop for AMMO online and you are worried about ICANN backflipping? Hello.

Re:what a joke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40829069)

I shop for and purchase ammo online legally. What does your post have to do with anything?

Backflips? (2)

Dagger2 (1177377) | more than 2 years ago | (#40825725)

The use of "backflips" suggests they've done something wrong. Yet the summary seems to say that there were complaints about the application process, and that ICANN has responded to those complaints by improving the process -- or at least altering it so as to remove the parts that were being complained about. In fact it doesn't even have anything negative to say about the news itself, other than the headline.

They actually listened to criticism and removed the cause of it. What more do people want of them?

(Other than coming to their senses and aborting the whole thing, of course.)

Re:Backflips? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40825811)

They actually listened to criticism and removed the cause of it. What more do people want of them?

1) Integrity
2) Competence

Re:Backflips? (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826007)

Maybe that ICANN would have thought harder about what they were proposing before they proposed it? It seems that the problem was described in a one-paragraph summary, was it that ICANN was incapable of understanding that much, or was it they didn't bother thinking it through?

Re:Backflips? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826055)

US Constitution arg()
1. .speech vs state secrets
2. rocket launcher vs police state
3.
4. privacy, being accused of piracy vs police state
5. can't shut up cause we fucking spied on ya.
6. give
7. me
8. a
9. fyucking
10. break
11. ... IRS ... DHS

Re:Backflips? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826109)

dodged that piece of bull shit psychopath psyop discussion yesterday!

1. You know I am right
2. Cryptome knows you fuck people via mod sequence.
3. Restore the US Constitution
4. quit being pussy

Clowns in a demollition derby? What next? (1)

rts008 (812749) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826219)

I think they need to change their name from ICANN to ICANNOT, ASAP!

Shopping-online for Swiss watch, High-quality Repl (-1, Offtopic)

sticktoll (2697379) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826315)

Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com/ [replicawatches007.com]

Shopping-online for Swiss watch, High-quality Repl (-1, Offtopic)

sticktoll (2697379) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826345)

Sales rolex replica, High-quality replica rolex watches,Top brand watches,all luxury watches for sale cheap and cheapest only $59 ,Buy cheap watches online at http://www.replicawatches007.com/ [replicawatches007.com]

Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40826597)

Re:Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (1)

Kalriath (849904) | more than 2 years ago | (#40837129)

I checked, and your link doesn't appear to contain any truth, just some blowhard whining about his apparently 100% legal site being shut down by no less than three registrars (which, incidentally, is a sign his site is not 100% legal). Perhaps you should check your sources next time.

Why we need new TLDs again? (3, Insightful)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40826713)

What was the official reason from ICANN for new TLDs again?
The current scheme don't make sense anymore anyhow, a company have to register .net, .com, .de, .org anyway to secure it's trademark. For example Disney: all TLDs redirect to the domain go.com with is registered with Disney Enterprises Inc., except .gov. So the only clasification that survived is .gov, all the others are basically the same.

After the introduction of cTLDs, there was no purpose for the ICANN anymore, other then to ensure that each country gets one cTLD. With a cTLD each country can make their own DNS sub-tree, like .co.uk. So there would be no issue what-so-ever with the long discussed berlin domain: just make .berlin.de, .munich.de, etc. and if a US company wishes they can get also their own domain: pepse.us.

Mark my prediction: there will be a time in the near future where the meaning of a TLD is gone and you can choose your TLD freely. That will be the final money grab of ICANN.

Firefox already got rid of the protocol part of the URL (the http://./ [.] So why we not just get rid of the TLD part? (It's already in firefox, for http://slashdot.com/ [slashdot.com] I can just enter "slashdot" in the URL bar).

Re:Why we need new TLDs again? (1)

AikonMGB (1013995) | more than 2 years ago | (#40827105)

You were with me until your stupid protocol argument. DNS and TCP/IP in general are used for many more things than just HTTP requests.

Re:Why we need new TLDs again? (1)

devent (1627873) | more than 2 years ago | (#40830743)

Complain to the Firefox developers.

Sorry, you think I approve to get rid of the protocol part? Maybe I was not clear, I just stated that Firefox already not showing the protocol part in the URL bar. I am not agree to that, the very first thing was I changed it to show http:/// [http] again.

Re:Why we need new TLDs again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40838557)

gee. all i need to do to get to http://slashdot.org/ [slashdot.org] is type:

s

in firefox's address bar, and it pops right up. tab + enter and i'm here. screw typing 'slashdot' that's too much.

between browser history, bookmarks and keywords i navigate virtually all sites through the awesomeness of the awesome bar.

Backflipped (0)

micahjc (615671) | more than 2 years ago | (#40828019)

I don't think that means what you think it means. Seriously, words mean things.

The real reason (0)

Sqr(twg) (2126054) | more than 2 years ago | (#40828139)

The real reason ICANN is doing all applications simultaneously, is so that the folks in the later batches won't have an opportunity to ask for their money back when they realize that a gTLD is completely worthless.

Here's what's going to happen: Somebody reigsters the gTLD "apple", and sets up his website at http://apple/ [apple] and his email somebody@apple. Then he finds out he gets no web traffic, because people don't type "http://" into their browsers. They just type "apple" and get the top search engine hit (apple.com) instead. Also, much of his incoming email never gets through, because most email software doesn't recognize "somebody@apple" as a valid email addresss.

Will browser makers update their browsers to go to gTLD's instead of top search results? I don't think so. Their users would hate them for it, so they'd need a financial incentive to do so. Maybe they could charge gTLD owner's another $100k to be on a whitelist. That would generate a lot of money for browser development.

Re:The real reason (2)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40828479)

Somebody reigsters the gTLD "apple", and sets up his website at http://apple/ [apple] [apple] and his email somebody@apple

There is no A or MX record for "com", "net","org","us","uk","info","museum","biz","mobi"... I'm going to say that none of them work that way. If anyone thought they would work that way, that's their own damn fault.

Re:The real reason (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40832529)

It actualy works for some TLDs:

http://ac./ [ac.]
http://ai./ [ai.]
http://dk./ [dk.]
http://io./ [io.]
http://sh./ [sh.]
http://tm./ [tm.]
http://uz./ [uz.]
http://ws./ [ws.]

Re:The real reason (1)

Qzukk (229616) | more than 2 years ago | (#40836417)

HAH! I just didn't try enough weird country codes. I stand corrected.

Why so much to run a tld? (1)

Mr. Sketch (111112) | more than 2 years ago | (#40828471)

Why does it cost hundreds of thousands to run a tld? Is most of that just labor/marketing costs? I would assume it would just be a matter of setting up a few replicating bind servers and a basic api for buying/adding domains that could be distributed to domain brokers (GoDaddy, Moniker, etc).

Maybe there is more involved that I think there should be?

I'm just curious where hundreds of thousands go to launch and run a tld.

Re:Why so much to run a tld? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40828679)

Partly Labor/Marketing, but it's a lot more than just running the database and the bind servers. You need to have 24/7 network and tech support, proper management systems for registrar data, bind servers that reach a sufficient standard, and primarily enough capital to sustain a TLD that will most likely be making a loss for several years.

Re:Why so much to run a tld? (1)

Lando (9348) | about 2 years ago | (#40854881)

You forgot the executives golden parachute I think, that's a lot of money right there in order to have the "proper" person running the company.

Check for New 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>