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!

World Governments Object To New gTLDs

timothy posted about 2 years ago | from the world-governments-acting-as-usual dept.

Government 135

hypnosec writes "ICANN is receiving more and more requests for new generic top level domains, and governments around the world are busy registering their complaints and objections with the proposed names. To date, more than 200 objections have been raised against proposed gTLDs, with Australia leading the pack with over 120 objections. Some of the other countries which are at the forefront of registering their objections include France, Germany and India. US and UK are near the bottom of the list. ICANN's "early warnings" about national objections to gTLDs serves as formal objections but it doesn't mean that these domains will never be signed off. There is always room for discussions and mediation that would allow prospective registrants to keep on pursuing their claims. Australia has objected to names such as '.baby,' '.app,' and '.beauty' among other. It has also objected to names such as '.sucks' and '.wtf,' stating that these names have 'an overtly negative or critical connotation.'"

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

Hey I Know The Fix (5, Funny)

GeneralTurgidson (2464452) | about 2 years ago | (#42066093)

Give control of everything to the UN

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (5, Funny)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 2 years ago | (#42066129)

Indeed.
Bureaucracy will ensure no new gTLD's will be approved before DNS has been completely replaced and it no longer matters.

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (1)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about 2 years ago | (#42067175)

New gTLD:
".noonewilleverusethem"

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42067719)

what about ".australianpoliticiansareabunchofcunts"

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066141)

Next you'll be suggesting cooperation rather than competition.

It doesn't matter that competition leads to the majority ending up losers in ruins - think of the small minority of winners! Reach for that rainbow, man! You might just win a slice too!

Classical capitalism: throwing ten dogs in a cage knowing that there's only enough food in there for two.

Modern capitalism: as classical, but making absolutely sure the dogs kill each other rather than turning on you for throwing them in there.

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066217)

Give everything to the UN: +5 Funny.

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (3, Interesting)

gl4ss (559668) | about 2 years ago | (#42066239)

well, some conspiracy theorist would say that this new tld sellout and fucking it up so badly as they have was done to move control away from icann.
it's a nice idea, to have to just use google to get to google's web page, but such a system would need one gatekeeper entity and icann is not up to the task.
maybe they should have made it a sort of nobel prize to get - build a new data cable from africa to south america and as a prize get a new tld for you. or star a new country. anything else than first going with the idea of asking 185k for a chance to participate in a digital archery contest, then pulling out and not even having the green go light for the whole fucking thing.

before I was under the assumption that the people who had applied for those tld's had already paid the apply fee, is it so? because I've started to doubt that they couldn't be that stupid? or could they? I mean, if they did then isn't ICANN on the edge of being outright fraudsters?

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about 2 years ago | (#42067591)

I was opposed to gTLD's at first, but I thought about another existing problem that we have, which gTLD's may fix.

If you own a trademark, let's say videolan. You figure, ok, let's pick up videolan.org. But oh wait, we need to prevent domain squatters from grabbing up the same names on .net, .us, .com, etc etc etc. Now instead of one domain name to maintain and pay for, you have numerous. Hell, you may have to pick up a domain name for every common TLD out there just to prevent squatters from grabbing it and then packaging spyware with it, so that your software package doesn't get a bad name due to asshats loading it with spyware.

Maybe not necessarily that far, but it's annoying when I type in e.g. vlc.com, and I end up with some domain squatter page. It would be a lot better if I could just trust a tld called videolan, and the owners of that project don't have to track numerous.

I don't know about anybody else, but I get annoyed as hell when I type a domain name that I am pretty sure belongs to who I think it does, only to find out that a squatter has it. Ok, big deal, go to the right one next time. Except now the squatter page is in my autocomplete, and I have to be careful about when I arrow down and hit enter, unless I go through and delete it.

I think we either go back to the system where .com .net and .org were supposed to go to their respective organization types, or just allow the gTLD system to go through.

And restricting .sucks or .wtf because they find it offensive is just stupid politically correct bullcrap. Why not ban sucks.com while you're at it? (oh look, an ad squatter has it!)

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (3, Informative)

mpe (36238) | about 2 years ago | (#42067753)

I was opposed to gTLD's at first, but I thought about another existing problem that we have, which gTLD's may fix.
If you own a trademark, let's say videolan. You figure, ok, let's pick up videolan.org. But oh wait, we need to prevent domain squatters from grabbing up the same names on .net, .us, .com, etc etc etc. Now instead of one domain name to maintain and pay for, you have numerous.


The thing to remember is that trademarks are NOT intended to be globally unique in the first place. They are specific to both places and types of business.

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066303)

Give control of everything to the UN

You mean, ITU? Which doesn't seem overly interested, really.
http://techcrunch.com/2012/06/05/is-the-u-n-really-trying-to-take-over-the-internet-nope/

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (0)

qbitslayer (2567421) | about 2 years ago | (#42067313)

Funny but, in the end, it comes down to this: There should be no such things as top level domains or URLs. It was a flawed idea to begin with. Just use a nondescript ID and voila. Problem solved. How web sites are organized and delivered to us should be left to the market, to the Googles and Microsofts of the world or anybody who can come up with good browsing and navigation system. Personally, I want everything to fit within a hierarchical tree and I want a 3-D browser for navigation.

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (1)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 2 years ago | (#42067709)

please say your joking

Re:Hey I Know The Fix (1)

fritsd (924429) | about 2 years ago | (#42068095)

LOL

"I know this! It's a Gopher [wikipedia.org] system! (hold off those velociraptors while I navigate the 11 billion node hierarchical tree)."

dibs on the.internet.sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066101)

First dibs!

Re:dibs on the.internet.sucks (1)

alostpacket (1972110) | about 2 years ago | (#42066349)

So you want http://the.internet.sucks.dibs/ [sucks.dibs] ?

Australia sucks balls. Balls that Australia sucks. (3, Insightful)

TiggertheMad (556308) | about 2 years ago | (#42067713)

Australia has objected to names such as '.baby,' '.app,' and '.beauty' among other. It has also objected to names such as '.sucks' and '.wtf,' stating that these names have 'an overtly negative or critical connotation.'"

I call dibs on Australia.Sucks!

I mean, way to go Australia, that's thinking out of the box! If you prohibit negative and critical TLDs, then negative and critical speech will go away and everyone will be happy. I wish I had thought of that...

(Fuck you Australia. No really, fuck you.)

Re:Australia sucks balls. Balls that Australia suc (3, Informative)

rs79 (71822) | about 2 years ago | (#42067969)

Damn, beat to the punch. But that doesn't matter, what matters is http://australia.sucks/ [australia.sucks] works even though it doesn't at time of writing. Or typing. Whatever.

But it's not Australia per se. It's a guy called Paul Twomey. He showed up in the late 90s after making a real dogs breakfast of internet regulations in Australia and was about as smarmy as they come so of course he did well in the den of lying clueless shitbag skullduggery that is ICANN and lasted 10 years until he lied to congress and achieved zero deliverables in a decade.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/ideas/internet/domains/eyestar/icann/ceo/salary/ [vrx.net]

So, after being ousted and replaced by Beckstrom I'd wager he ran around to any governmental authority that would list and for only $way_too_much helped them write a report on the order of ".sucks" sucks.

This was done through the "Government Advisory Committee" or "GAC", and I was there that day when the GAC was introduced by the ITU wonk Bob Shaw as an "essential" part to this. Where "this" was supposed to be "measure the consensus of the internet communty and implement it".

During an open mike session later that hour, I asked for a show of hands for support for this GAC. 11 out of 1000 people raised their hands, all government reps to the GAC even though it hadn't been created yet. It was emphasized this was "advisory" only.

Ok, we heard your advice, now fuck off.

P.S. I still have the .rm files of that day in Berlin fom the Berkman center archives if anyone's interested.

TLD tilde toodles toots (1)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 years ago | (#42066115)

Stop compotoring its time for turkoy you flomogoborts!

My taxes (-1, Flamebait)

Intrepid imaginaut (1970940) | about 2 years ago | (#42066153)

This is how they are being spent.

overtly negative or critical connotation? (3, Funny)

alienzed (732782) | about 2 years ago | (#42066157)

I guess Australians don't have internet access yet...

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066227)

It is because our government has to much religious influence. Scary thing is this is our less conservative scummy government too. Our conservative government are a pack of loonies.

Remember this is the same country that only just passed R18+ rating on video games. After religious nutbars tried to block it for ages.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0, Troll)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about 2 years ago | (#42066339)

So ANYTHING should be allowed?

How about .iliketofucklittleboysuptheass?

I mean, if "freedom of speech" trumps all, there should be no limits at all?

How about .shitonmuhammad?

I realize that these are extream examples, but what is offensive to one large group is not always offensive to Slashdot types, who are rarely offended at anything.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066367)

I realize that these are extream examples, but what is offensive to one large group is not always offensive to Slashdot types, who are rarely offended at anything.

As a Slashdot spelling grammar type, I'm offended by the misspelling of "extreme"!

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066463)

So ANYTHING should be allowed?

How about .iliketofucklittleboysuptheass?

I mean, if "freedom of speech" trumps all, there should be no limits at all?

If you can't tell the difference between saying something sucks and pedophilia, you're either an idiot or a pedophile who's afraid of "dirty words". Chill the fuck out and stop borrowing nonsense arguments from the likes of Rick Santorum.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42067727)

If you can't tell the difference between jokes about pedophilia and pedophilia then you're either an idiot or a member of the church. Chill the fuck out and stop borrowing nonsense arguments from soccer moms.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066495)

Look, it is up to the person who feels offense to speech to remove themselves from it's presence. We should not be restricting free speech just because someone could feel offense.

Just because you take offense to something, does not mean I should not be able to say it, you can always walk away and not listen.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066501)

you sir have great ideas for domain names. Really.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (3, Insightful)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about 2 years ago | (#42066533)

I'm offended by your inability to recognize the fact that you're being offensive to those of us who are not easily offended.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (2)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42066541)

So ANYTHING should be allowed?

Yes

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066767)

So ANYTHING should be allowed?

How about .iliketofucklittleboysuptheass?

I mean, if "freedom of speech" trumps all, there should be no limits at all?

How about .shitonmuhammad?

I realize that these are extream examples, but what is offensive to one large group is not always offensive to Slashdot types, who are rarely offended at anything.

No. I think we can all agree that there should be some limits, but we likely don't agree on what those limits should be.

Eugene Volokh, a US Constitutional law professor wrote an essay [heritage.org] (scroll down to paragraph 7) for the Heritage Foundation on the freedom of speech clause and the exceptions to it.

That list of exceptions is: incitement, false statements of fact, obscenity, child pornography, threats, fighting words, speech owned by others (IP law), and commercial advertising.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42067471)

No. I think we can all agree that there should be some limits

No. There should be no limits. Who cares what the address is? It isn't as if you are required to see it, use it, or even acknowledge its existence. Getting upset over that is like getting upset that someone out there got the phone number 1900 hot girls. It doesn't matter.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (1)

interval1066 (668936) | about 2 years ago | (#42066973)

As if an intelligent person needs protection from being offended. Ever.

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (1)

neokushan (932374) | about 2 years ago | (#42067003)

So how is that any different to someone buying iliketofucklittleboysuptheass.com?

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42067111)

.shitonmuhammad should be allowed, since there are all sorts of anti-Islamic voices, including ex-Muslims. Of course, if ICANN ever does that, expect all 50 odd Muslim countries to be up in arms

Re:overtly negative or critical connotation? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066431)

OMGWTF shrimp on the barbie!

australia.wtf (5, Interesting)

MakerDusk (2712435) | about 2 years ago | (#42066167)

I don't see why there are even objections. Why do governments even have a right to determine what gTLD's are offensive? We're talking about privately owned names and the government should have no hand in that. It should be something between the applicant and their user base alone. For any government that thinks they have the right to control the names that people choose on internet: censorship.sucks

Re:australia.wtf (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066295)

Any time there is just 1 of something which will impact many people (monopolies, trademarks, phone system, gTLD names) then governments get involved.

Re:australia.wtf (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066345)

Have they reserved .dingo ?

Re:australia.wtf (1)

Calydor (739835) | about 2 years ago | (#42066389)

No, but they've pre-registered http://www.dingoatemy.baby/ [dingoatemy.baby]

Re:australia.wtf (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | about 2 years ago | (#42066583)

I wonder if they've already blocked .dingoberries

Critical connotation! WFT!? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066169)

I fail to see how that is supposed to be a reason for not allowing a TLD. Critique and satire are important cornerstones of individual and free expression, of - yes - critical discourse and public debate. Yes, not everything on the internet smells like roses and tastes like sugar. But meaningful exchange has never been without thornes and sometimes words have to be nasty to get through.

It is shamefull for a democratic government to be acting in such a way. A democracy hears its citizens, accepts critique and initiate change whereever reasonable. Censoring speech because you're afraid of people not praising you all the way - that's the way of tyrannies.

Re:Critical connotation! WFT!? (1)

fyngyrz (762201) | about 2 years ago | (#42066245)

It is shamefull for a democratic government to be acting in such a way. A democracy hears its citizens, accepts critique and initiate change whereever reasonable.

Where do you live? I live in the USA, which was instantiated with the intent of creating a constitutional republic, but which has mutated into a corporate oligarchy, primarily via legislative and judicial action. We can have no such expectations here, not if we're paying attention, anyway.

Not so sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066385)

Is it really censorship to keep a semblance of order? To me a TLD doesn't seem like speech, but rather a protocol. Personally, I think by turning TLDs into speech we are opening a can of worms. But that ship may have sailed out the barn door long ago. Probably down the series of .tubes

Re:Critical connotation! WFT!? (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about 2 years ago | (#42066921)

I will call many of those countries DINOs aka Democracies In Name Only since most people seem to equate "Democracy" to a government based on modern "Republicanism" which in not a Republic per se but something unique to the some movements in Europe and was a strong driver of the American revolutionaries.
DINOs do not honor immutable individual rights but do feebly proclaim human civil rights which varies with the governments whim.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism [wikipedia.org]

Re:Critical connotation! WFT!? (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 2 years ago | (#42067657)

Why do you think that a 'true' democracy is inherently going to "honor immutable individual rights" anyway? Democracy is tyranny of the majority, and the prop 8 debacle in California demonstrated exactly what happens when majorities (democracies) decide what rights minorities have. Which is to say whatever the majority wants.

Basically no matter what kind of government you have, somebody is deciding what is right for somebody else, and government provides the theater by which force is used to make that decision apply. The only thing that prevents complete authoritarian tyranny are constitutions, which in the last century have become weaker and weaker due to unscrupulous and negligent judiciary proceedings.

i dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066179)

whats the big deal really? they are just words, and not even "bad" ones at that.
Govs are more and more becoming like kindergardens full of little pesky shits not wanting to share the toys with anyone else.

Re:i dont get it (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066595)

They are probably mostly objecting to one single corporation or entity getting the full rights to a TLD based on a generic word.

They can have .zune, tho'. (4, Funny)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about 2 years ago | (#42066185)

Brazil is objecting to .amazon being taken by amazon.com.

Let's hope Microsoft can't claim windows.com. 1. It was arrogant for them to name their custom windowing system that, and 2. The product is now more accurately described as .primaryColorTiles.

Re:They can have .zune, tho'. (1)

Phrogman (80473) | about 2 years ago | (#42066215)

or perhaps ".donotbuy" :P

Windows on a building (1)

tepples (727027) | about 2 years ago | (#42068043)

The [Windows operating system published by Microsoft] is now more accurately described as .primaryColorTiles.

I disagree. Look at the exterior of a building at night [nurture.com] : the windows make up a grid of little lit-up squares.

What's wrong with Baby? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066197)

My first reaction was 'why would they complain about baby?' But I went and read the complaint. I guess I totally misunderstood the purpose of these gTLDs. I naively assumed they were just new extensions that everyone could use if they wanted. However the complaint about .baby was that Johnson and Johnson was reserving it for themselves. Well DUH!! of course you can't do that.

I worry about the lack of common sense in the business world.

Re:What's wrong with Baby? (4, Insightful)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 2 years ago | (#42066247)

So Baby.com is ok, but Johnson.baby isn't? Once every company grabs up a gTLD it'll be the same as what it used to be. Instead of 'ABCD.com' it'll be 'XYZ.ABCD'. Big deal.

Re:What's wrong with Baby? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066323)

I think AC is saying Johnson and Johnson wanted ALL addresses under the .baby gTLD. Agreed, this would be patently ridiculous (which is to say it would be as ridiculous as the current patent system).

Re:What's wrong with Baby? (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 2 years ago | (#42066459)

Having ALL addresses under .baby is just fine, and is equivalent to having baby.com.

AOL keywords (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066545)

It's just like AOL keywords all over again.

Re:What's wrong with Baby? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066559)

I think AC is saying Johnson and Johnson wanted ALL addresses under the .baby gTLD. Agreed, this would be patently ridiculous (which is to say it would be as ridiculous as the current patent system).

Yes, they want to control .baby just like other companies ultimately control (and sell off) .com, .net, etc domains. Sure, Johnson won't sell too many (if any) but they don't have to since they already have enough money that it wouldn't matter.

These clowns want to spend $185,000 per gTLD so they can either have exclusive use (such as .baby) or sell them at ridiculous prices to a limited market (.news, .cars, etc). Now, Amazon may want to have the best of both world by controlling .amazon as well as selling expensive domains to Amazon "partners" (can you say baby.amazon?).

I wanted to get the .a-z gTLD just so I could F'up regex stuff (that's just the way I roll ;-)

Why not just drop TLDs (5, Informative)

pittaxx (2003818) | about 2 years ago | (#42066199)

No one respects the conventions at this point anyway and I don't see much point in using them any more. Big companies just register everything available anyway, and small ones has to deal with trolling an scamming. It's just an extra vector for profit to some people, the way I see it. I'd say just drop the requirement for TLDs and let the people use current ones if they want to.

Re:Why not just drop TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066301)

I agree with this. ICANN has shown it is only interested in making money. Bury them.

Re:Why not just drop TLDs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066927)

This is the most sensible comment I've read on the issue in quite a long time. Basically all those country level and other TLDs serve no purpose except to make companies &c. fork over the money to get their name registered in each of them because otherwise someone else will.

Just stick to country codes for (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066201)

Just stick to country codes ONLY for top level names and let each country do what they want.
Of course that would mean the end to .com, .net and .org, but doing anything else just creates a mess.

But I don't see that happening, too much money to be made.

Re:Just stick to country codes for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066377)

On the contrary: let's get rid of country codes!

Re:Just stick to country codes for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066701)

Oh fuck it: lets just get rid of countries all together, these social-economic-political-cultural-religious-sexual-racial divides just cause way too many problems.
Nuking them from orbit might be a good start.

Re:Just stick to country codes for (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#42067149)

Actually, if they keep proliferating all these gTLBs, that's not a bad idea. But not otherwise. But if they do proliferate all these gTLBs, get rid of .com, .org, .net, .edu, .gov and so on, and just have the new TLDs. Oh, and make these all IPv6 only - there is nowhere near enough IPv4 to support all this - in fact, such a proliferation would even tax IPv6, and force us to IPv7.

Re:Just stick to country codes for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42068337)

How do DNS names affect IPs??????

Re:Just stick to country codes for (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#42067131)

Just stick to country codes ONLY for top level names and let each country do what they want. Of course that would mean the end to .com, .net and .org, but doing anything else just creates a mess.

But I don't see that happening, too much money to be made.

This!

What was wrong w/ what we had? Make it country codes only, and retire .com, .org, .mil and .edu i.e. put them behind their national domains, be it .us, .ca, .eu,, .uk, .ru or whatever.

Roll it back.

Re:Just stick to country codes for (1)

John Bokma (834313) | about 2 years ago | (#42067497)

Yeah, it's just that simple, of course there are no name clashes at all....

Re:Just stick to country codes for (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#42067979)

That way, each country can run its own registry. Organizations that call themselves 'international' can use TLDs like .un, .eu, .oas, .au, etc.

Re:Just stick to country codes for (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42067353)

I want to see all of those dead. I honestly would give anything to see every one of them die.

Country Codes, in fact, http://[continent/country].type.domain.subdomains is the only solution that will work, period.
Everybody else can fart about and do whatever crap they want inside their own country domains if they want to, just don't pollute the global space with bullshit TLDs like they are now.
Continent can be used for large-scale corps only. Multinationals are instantly in that group if they operate in 2 or more areas.
PROBLEM SOLVED.

And for all those crybabies who don't want the DNS to change, make both of these incompatible with each other.
Those scrubs can keep their web1.crap, we will evolve to web made out of DIAMOND.
HTTP? More like no.
Just name it something like web://, webs://*, not as if there is much changing being done, the protocol under it will be the same, it is just a different syntax identifier for it.
In fact, a different protocol might be better. Something like SPDY and some of the stuff from Microsofts research recently could be combined in to a fantastic new protocol for an actual rich-media web.
* still can't believe there was even a suggestion for .secure. Way to doubly make protocol redundant.

Re:Just stick to country codes for (1)

Twinbee (767046) | about 2 years ago | (#42067677)

Maybe it's too late now, but I would otherwise say get rid of the extension altogether, along with http etc.

Actually, maybe just have www. at the beginning to show it is a web address.

Ah the world's nanny state is also present. (2)

MistrX (1566617) | about 2 years ago | (#42066211)

'An overtly negative or critical connotation.'

Yeah imagine people being critical.
Even worse: People being critical with a frown on their face!

Re:Ah the world's nanny state is also present. (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 2 years ago | (#42066659)

'An overtly negative or critical connotation.'

Yeah imagine people being critical. Even worse: People being critical with a frown on their face!

Just wait until they hear about ".gov" and ".mil" ... overtly negative or critical connotation indeed.

I liked the .spam TLD idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066229)

Along with .scam, .lame, .sawthisbefore, and .nsfw. Those would make our sysadmins lives a lot easier.

Re:I liked the .spam TLD idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42067743)

Right. Because all the spammers and fraudsters in the whole world will voluntarily move to a TLD that would allow them to be easily ignored.

Are you actually retarded, or incredibly ignorant?

World Governments ? (2)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 years ago | (#42066233)

How many "World Governments" are there? I only know of one (Yhe UN) and not all of the National Governments take any heed to what they say.

If there was more than one World Government wouldn't they be arguing/fighting with each other?
(like during the cold war, the First World (Capitalist western Democracies) were nearly at war with the Second World (Communist Countries), and some of the fighting was in third world countries...

Re:World Governments ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066401)

The world's governments you jackass.

Re:World Governments ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066415)

I believe by World Governments, they mean Governments of the World

Police (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066241)

The police in the Netherlands want to register the TLD .politie
(the Dutch word for police)
I think it is a ridiculous waste of public money.
And what if the word politie exists in other languages as well?
Of course they already hold politie.nl
And that should be it.

EU's position (5, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about 2 years ago | (#42066271)

"All these words are yours except .europa."

Re:EU's position (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066571)

I see what you did there, but even so, .eu should be enough for everybody.
The only thing a .europa (or even .europe) would do is to make everybody who has .eu-domains wish they could also get the equivavlent under the other TLDs, which they might not, depending on who owns and controls it.

Re:EU's position (3, Funny)

mrbester (200927) | about 2 years ago | (#42066673)

"Attempt no registrations there."

This .sucks (1)

Zeromous (668365) | about 2 years ago | (#42066309)

>It has also objected to names such as '.sucks' and '.wtf,' stating that these names have 'an overtly negative or critical connotation.'"

We wouldn't want to have any criticism on the Internet, would we?

Re:This .sucks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066369)

sucks isn't always used in a negative connotation... that redhead sucks like billy-o!

tld (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066343)

www.australia.sucks

I don't see the problem.

Re:tld (1)

Russ1642 (1087959) | about 2 years ago | (#42066647)

That's wildly different than www.australiasucks.com

US claims .army ;-) (1)

fantomas (94850) | about 2 years ago | (#42066353)

I guess this is a case of the biggest guys slugging out for who has rights. Ouch, could be some collateral damage to bystanders! THERE IS ONLY ONE ARMY AND IT IS OUR ARMY!!!! COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU DON'T AGREE! ooh could be nasty....

(actually to be fair probably the US are just arguing .army shouldn't be there as it's just too much trouble sorting out everybody wanting their army to have it...)

Feel a bit sorry for the folks in South America mind, 20 years time and maybe the amazon shipping company will be history while hopefully the river and its ecosystem will still be around for a while to come...

Re:US claims .army ;-) (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 2 years ago | (#42066395)

The U.S. Department of Defense already has .mil

perks come with inventing the interernet, and have the Two Words: nuclear fucking weapons

Re:US claims .army ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066633)

and have the Two Words: nuclear fucking weapons

Something just doesn't add up with this statement.

Re:US claims .army ;-) (2)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#42066773)

and have the Two Words: nuclear fucking weapons

Something just doesn't add up with this statement.

One, two, three, its all the same when you have nuclear-fucking-weapons!

Re:US claims .army ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066809)

The perk include not having to count.

Would you even trust sites on these new TLDs? (2)

denis-The-menace (471988) | about 2 years ago | (#42066435)

/. should have a poll about this.

Re:Would you even trust sites on these new TLDs? (1)

toejam13 (958243) | about 2 years ago | (#42066679)

I expect that scammers and other unscrupulous vendors will be the first one to use them.

I actually wanted to see more accountability in domain names, not less. The entire meaning of .com, .org, .net and .edu has been blurred because anyone could register any name. The new TLDs will just make the problem worse.

But hey, a small number of people are going to make a LOT of money from this. So that makes this a good idea, right?

Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066489)

Why not make it easy... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42066811)

Just allow any TLD as long as they pay $50 million 95%+ of which goes to a foundation that brings the internet and technology to people who don't have access to them yet. I would be even fine if that money goes straight to Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Re:Why not make it easy... (1)

unixisc (2429386) | about 2 years ago | (#42067169)

Hey, that would be a great plan to make ICANN rich.

Are all these domains under US jurisdiction? (1)

Requiem18th (742389) | about 2 years ago | (#42066887)

Given how megaupload's raid was partially justified in it having an American TLD all these .baby domans seems like a move to extend US net jurisdiction.

How is .app offensive to Australians? (1)

dufachi (973647) | about 2 years ago | (#42066939)

I'm trying to figure out why the Australian government would find .app offensive. Other than pure commercial greed, I mean. I wonder if someone is trying to get .blackfriday

I object to ALL new TLDs (4, Insightful)

WaffleMonster (969671) | about 2 years ago | (#42067115)

I can't think of anything more outrageous and distructive to the DNS system than allowing a bunch of useless new TLDs which only serve to enrich ICANN, phishers and name protection rackets.

I guess I should be appalled and dismayed when you develop a structure on the Internet which explicitly allows governments to weigh in on decisions and it quickly devolves into childish nonsense... Nobody could have possibly predicted this??? ..give me a fucking break.

Giving governments a taste of say/power over the happenings of the net is bad policy it only encourages governments to seek more power which only results in bad outcomes.

It might seem silly but those extra layers in the ISO model are getting to be more and more important to the design of protocols and operation of the network. Being sloppy, greedy and a total sellout (ICANN) instead of clever and concerned about the freedom and well-being of users is a recipe for disaster.

If slashdot was still a site with editors: (5, Insightful)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | about 2 years ago | (#42067505)

If Slashdot editors weren't just after cheap headlines they might have picked up on this:

Domain: Capitol

Australian objection: The useofgeographicnamesat the secondlevel:Thestring(.capital) is a generic geographicterm,and DeltaMillLLCdoesnotappeartohaveproposedsufficientmechanismstoallowcommunitiesto protecttheirnamesandreputationsfrommisuseatthesecondlevel.

So it seems that Australia is actually trying to prevent what many here fear, that there will be a ton of meaningless top domains which will force people either to register their sub domain to protect their brand/identity or have it exploited by someone else.

As for the giggles about .sucks wanna bet the company behind that isn't about protesting or free speech but "you want to prevent [your name here].sucks from appearing in search result, why not register it yourself, that will be 1000 dollars please. A tiny amount to the internationals, costs of doing business but feed a leech and it will only suck more.

I am with Australia on this and I think they should use their power to block ALL requests. Get the whole idea shutdown. Someone in government in Australia seems to be awake and the rest of world is asleep at the wheel as usual or to interested in just their own tiny section to see the big picture.

If only.... (1)

Improv (2467) | about 2 years ago | (#42067609)

It'd be great if we could get them to object to and block every single new topical TLD.

Those Aussies! (1)

0xG (712423) | about 2 years ago | (#42068197)

I guess my application for .sheila may go through?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?