Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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!

Shorter '.uk' Domain Name Put On Ice

Unknown Lamer posted about a year ago | from the sudden-outbreak-of-good-sense dept.

The Internet 110

judgecorp writes "The British domain name registry, Nominet, has abandoned the idea of a shorter .uk domain name system, which would replace the current regime where all .uk domains are in subdomains, such as .co.uk, or .org.uk. Although a consultation found a huge demand for a simpler system, Nominet couldn't get agreement on how to get there from here — so has put the idea to one side for now. There are some shorter addreses like british-library.uk — but these predate Nominet's regime."

cancel ×

110 comments

Well, shit... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043349)

There will not be a motherf.uk

Shorter ... (1)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year ago | (#43043649)

http://f.uk/ [f.uk] will do

Re:Shorter ... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044487)

http://sh.it [sh.it] is available.

F.and S (4, Funny)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about a year ago | (#43043351)

I would think that it wouldn't have been lost on anyone the problem with websites ending in F or S. Or even Y. Co.uk just doesn't have the same naming problems.

Re:F.and S (4, Funny)

dave1791 (315728) | about a year ago | (#43043381)

I am totally registering goats.uk if they do this.

Re:F.and S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043405)

Why?

Re:F.and S (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#43043449)

Because he needs a change from goatse.cx, that's why

Re:F.and S (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043811)

Because he needs a change from goatse.cx, that's why

goat.se ?

Re:F.and S (2)

deniable (76198) | about a year ago | (#43043457)

idontgiveaf.uk

Re:F.and S (2)

deniable (76198) | about a year ago | (#43043465)

Or for the people who insist on short links: is.uk

Re:F.and S (2)

azalin (67640) | about a year ago | (#43043659)

yeah, but currently you're outofl.uk with this

Don't change it... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043443)

I prefer the 2nd level domain system on a national level it is easier for dispute resolution.

All domains should have something like this:
com.[country_code] for registered national business
org.[country_code] for registered national organisation
asn.[country_code] for registered national association
edu.[country_code] for registered national education
gov.[country_code] for official government usage
pub.[country_code] for private usage
xxx.com.[country_code] for registered national porn.

Everything else should be scrapped.
Unfortunately the whole DNS is fuxxored from the start by a lack of foresight and unfortunately it's too late to fix it.
The US may have invented it but they invented a piece of crap which only benefits lawyers.

my 2c.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#43043459)

What ?? Registered national porn ? Where are you living ?

Re:Don't change it... (2)

deniable (76198) | about a year ago | (#43043469)

The Australian government provided a list. Thanks, Steve.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year ago | (#43043653)

This is the same country that allows TFA's lawsuit about "defamatory proceedings" for people who criticized it too hard. What could possibly go wrong having these same people registering porn?

I love the idea of presumptively needing permission of government to do things. It makes me feel safe.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | about a year ago | (#43045031)

> Where are you living ?

Obviously in a place with a lot of pubs.
And in those pubs you can "use" your "privates"... whatever that might mean... http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/private#Synonyms_2
Anyway, smoking is not allowed in those pubs. Just so you know you CAN grow hair on the palms of your hand without damaging your lungs.

> pub.[country_code] for private usage

Re:Don't change it... (1)

a_hanso (1891616) | about a year ago | (#43043475)

What on earth is national porn? (outside of .jp, that is)

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043511)

Have you ever seen british girl?
Trust me, you'll wish .uk had national porn, perferably not accessible from ouside .uk

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043535)

Sorry I was meaning commercial porn (non-free)..

Re:Don't change it... (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043495)

That is great idea but I would also want:

xxx.org.[country_code] for non-profit porn.
xxx.asn.[country_code] for locker room porn.
xxx.edu.[country_code] for college porn.
xxx.gov.[country_code] for whitehouse porn.
xxx.pub.[country_code] for amatuer porn.

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043563)

^ Hand this man a gold-plated geek card. You Sir are my hero.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

azalin (67640) | about a year ago | (#43043667)

actually xxx.gov.[country_code] could prove to be rather interesting in Italy (Bunga Bunga), France or the States. But I don't even want to contemplate on Germany.

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043843)

. But I don't even want to contemplate on Germany.

Das Merkle Jerkle :-P

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044299)

Das Merkle Jerkle Circle :-P
FTFY

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044455)

Das Merkle Lurkle Jerkle Circle :-P
FTFY

Re:Don't change it... (1)

somersault (912633) | about a year ago | (#43044323)

Shouldn't xxx.asn be for Asian porn? It deserves its own category, no matter the country of origin.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43043745)

This sort of thing is elegant, and appeals to engineers who love everything to be neatly organised and categorised in an easy to remember system.

Problem is, DNS hasn't been about engineering considerations for some time. It's very much a marketing thing. Microsoft and Apple would love to have websites at www.microsoft and www.apple respectively. The ".com" just means "on the internet" which was cool a decade ago and even cooler back in the mid 1990's but that's nothing special any more.

As for being "fuxxored", I think a big problem was the inclusion of non-national domains, and the stupid way the .us domain system worked (third level domain and lower only until 2002).

Re:Don't change it... (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | about a year ago | (#43043773)

www prefixes? That's so twentieth-century.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43043779)

Slashdot.org, of course has always been ahead of its time:)

Re:Don't change it... (1)

flimflammer (956759) | about a year ago | (#43043991)

Why keep the www when that's basically redundant information as well?

Re:Don't change it... (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year ago | (#43043999)

No real need. I just added it because "microsoft" doesn't look like a domain.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

dingen (958134) | about a year ago | (#43044125)

http://microsoft/ [microsoft] does

Re:Don't change it... (1)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43044281)

At one time, IE would change a URL of "freecell" to "freecell.com", then use that to bring up the solitaire game.

Re:Don't change it... (3, Insightful)

RabidReindeer (2625839) | about a year ago | (#43044325)

Why keep the www when that's basically redundant information as well?

It's a legacy. www wasnt' the first service on the Internet, and ultimately, all Internet service requests have to reference a host. Usually we don't use raw IP addresses, so a fully-qualified domain hostname would be needed. It was common to alias (or primarily) name the www server with hostname "www", giving a FQDN of www.foobar.com. As distinguised from its gopher server in a different box (gopher.foobar.com) or the mail servers (mail.foobar.com and smtp.foobar.com).

However, as www grew, the assumption that the www server's hostname was going to be "www" became a safe bet, so if a client couldn't find a "foobar.com", it would try "www.foobar.com". For that matter, if it couldn't find "foobar", it would often look for "foobar.com" then "www.foobar.com".

In addition to adding educated guesswork to clients, DNS also participated in the conspiracy. A lot of places did clustering on the www service, so the actual physical hostname was no longer relevant.

So, in short, the full www.foobar.com remains, but we don't usually have to go to that much trouble anymore.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

ebh (116526) | about a year ago | (#43044481)

And it persists. My kid's teacher's email address is @brrsd.k12.nj.us.

Re:Don't change it... (1)

andy.ruddock (821066) | about a year ago | (#43044199)

Why not xxx.[country_code] for porn? No need to add an extra level just for that.
I like the idea of a separate porn tld, makes it easy both for those who want to find it, and those who want to avoid it.

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044233)

Why not xxx.[country_code] for porn?

To separate free porn from non-free porn. Now hand in your geek card.

Re:Don't change it... (0)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year ago | (#43044369)

Absolutely. On the Radio yesterday they were pointing out a scam where a company charges 30UKP for "helping" you to fill out a UK passport application form. Many people thought they were on the official government passport site, because it was the first thing in the Google results. One of the points of advice on the program was to look at the URL for .gov.uk rather than .co.uk

With the number of scammers on the internet, one thing it's not sensible to lose is identification of official government sites right there in the domain name.

Re:Don't change it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044697)

Unfortunately the whole DNS is fuxxored

While we are fixing broken systems from our armchairs...
It would be nice that the whole SSL certificate shit is fixed as well.
Make it that only a national domain authority can issue security certs for a national TLD.
And every domain comes with a valid SSL certificate when you register it and is valid for the duration of your domain registry.
Then we can have a 100% encrypted web by default, no excuses.

Maybe fix this problem with a single 0-Day patch, combined with a complete switch to IPv6 for the entire internet.
Sure it will break the whole net, but fuck it. Just do it. It would be worth it.

Poor sods (-1, Troll)

vikingpower (768921) | about a year ago | (#43043455)

Allright, mod me down into oblivion, but ...they just can't get it working, the poor Brits, can they ? Just like the mile against the kilometer and the pound against the kilogram: changing for better and simpler is so hard.

Re:Poor sods (1)

zandeez (1917156) | about a year ago | (#43043507)

We still use the mile, and most market stalls still list prices in both kilograms and pounds. Measuring the weight of a person is still done in stone and pounds in the home in many cases. Some builders and estate agents still use feet and inches. So in reality us Brits have to be able to work with either system and be able to convert between them.

Re:Poor sods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043901)

So in reality us Brits have to be able to work with either system and be able to convert between them.

Not really, you are only working with a small subset of imperial units. I bet that you don't even know how to convert between a Dutch and a French inch.

Re:Poor sods (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year ago | (#43044057)

So in reality us Brits have to be able to work with either system and be able to convert between them.

Not really, you are only working with a small subset of imperial units. I bet that you don't even know how to convert between a Dutch and a French inch.

We don't need to - everyone knows the British inch is best :)

Re:Poor sods (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year ago | (#43044895)

> Not really, you are only working with a small subset of imperial units.

Newsflash: NOBODY, not even AMERICANS, uses the "full set" of imperial units in daily life. The main POINT Of imperial units, and why they persist, is because for some specific problem domains, they happen to work with nicer whole units that are more convenient for that purpose. Americans happily buy Diet Mountain Dew in 12oz cans and 2-liter bottles.

Re:Poor sods (1)

colfer (619105) | about a year ago | (#43044105)

I find "subzero" confusing in Canadian or British weather. Adds to the wind-chill confusion, but that is less common.
I read somewhere British phone numbers are the most difficult to remember. Maybe it's the punctuation, but I mostly like the U.S. system, except for the newer area code regime.

Re:Poor sods (2)

colfer (619105) | about a year ago | (#43044123)

Oh, and the billion as million-million thing too. Does the BBC still stick with "thousand million" and "million million" exclusively? Can't recall I've heard it recently.

Re:Poor sods (1)

Goose In Orbit (199293) | about a year ago | (#43044319)

I don't think anybody thinks in terms of billion = million million over here these days (even the Treasury... though if you ask them, the poor sod who answers the phone might have to go and check... just to be sure...)

Re:Poor sods (1)

Jon Peterson (1443) | about a year ago | (#43044343)

We've given up, and billion means thousand million in British English now.

Even more embarrassing, we now called muffins "English Muffins", because everyone thinks muffins are those fluffy things baked in tins that Starbucks sell.

Re:Poor sods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43045103)

Sub-zero means that it is below freezing point of water. So you have ice below zero.
It is better than some arbitrary 0F that happens to be a particular concentrations of ice and salt and a 100F to be the temperature of the armpit of the wife of the inventor.

Also if you live far north enough, the temperature actually also goes negative in the F scale. So using the F scale does not mean you get to ignore negative numbers from you failing grade in math.

Re:Poor sods (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043687)

The main reasons the public consultation was so negative regarding the .uk domain was because Nominet wanted to tack on a load of "security" features only available for .uk domains, and there being a general feeling that this was just a money making scheme forcing all UK companies to buy 2 domains.

All Nominet had to do was offer those security features to existing domains, and give all current domain holders their equivalent .uk domain. But no, instead they ice the whole thing.

They don't appear to be used much anyway. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043503)

I work in a solicitors in the UK. Our website address is .com, as is the address from a huge majority of solicitors who I have to look up daily in order to write to them. As well as other organisations that would be related: banks, utility companies, estate agents, auction companies, funeral-directors, housing companies, etc. The majority are .com, few are .org. None are .co.uk. The only exception was one I came across yesterday that was a new property company that had their main page on a .net.uk and all subsequent pages linked to a .com for whatever reason. Government entities are all using .gov.uk, but that's to be expected.

My point is, at least in the sector of business that I'm involved in, .whatever.uk simply isn't used. Probably because it's a stupid system. Why would they change their website now if people are happy with .com/.org?

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

stevebrowne (307819) | about a year ago | (#43043529)

10 million are registered. They are used all over the place. Are you sure you've never seen them?

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

Duncan Booth (869800) | about a year ago | (#43043581)

Anonymous Coward may be overstating things slightly, but there is an element of truth in what they wrote. Any large business in the UK will register both .co.uk and the corresponding .com: they need both versions to prevent domain squatters muddying their name. So for example if you look at major UK supermarkets: tesco.co.uk, waitrose.co.uk, marksandspencer.co.uk all redirect to the corresponding .com address, Asda let you use either at the top level but all subsequent links are .com. Only Sainburys do it the other way round and redirect sainsburys.com to sainsburys.co.uk.
Smaller companies though may not want or be bothered about protecting their name that way so they pick one or the other. Also international companies like Amazon and Google often use the country specific domains to provide a localised service.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

OolimPhon (1120895) | about a year ago | (#43043781)

You do know that most of the UK companies that you quote are also international companies? That's why they have .com addresses.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (2)

bickerdyke (670000) | about a year ago | (#43043889)

...which makes the whole country-TLD system look like a bad idea from the beginning.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43044615)

Not really. Tesco's Czech operation uses .cz http://www.itesco.cz/cs/ [itesco.cz] , their Hungarian one .hu: http://tesco.hu/ [tesco.hu]

I suspect if I accessed tesco.com from a Hungarian IP I'd be redirected.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

osu-neko (2604) | about a year ago | (#43043775)

10 million are registered.

There are plenty of registrations for the .us TLD as well, but how many of those do you actually see used?

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

RaceProUK (1137575) | about a year ago | (#43044059)

There used to be http://del.icio.us/ [del.icio.us] but it seems they've changed it.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43044629)

10 million are registered.

There are plenty of registrations for the .us TLD as well, but how many of those do you actually see used?

There are only 1.7 million .US domains compared to 10 million .UK domains, and the UK is smaller.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (2)

jonbryce (703250) | about a year ago | (#43043597)

I often find that companies use for example megacorp.com for their corporate / investor relations website, and megacorp.co.uk for their consumer website.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (2)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year ago | (#43044201)

I often find that companies use for example megacorp.com for their corporate / investor relations website, and megacorp.co.uk for their consumer website.

My employer has esesntially that set it. We use a ".com" as a kind of global landing page that will link to the various regions as well as corporate/investor relations type of thing. Then each country has their own page, as well as some special domains for multinational entities that are still nevertheless sub-entities of the corporate whole.

It can sound confusing until you look at it:

Landing page for anyone, anywhere. [konicaminolta.com]
Japanese domestic market. [konicaminolta.jp]
United Kingdom domestic market. [konicaminolta.co.uk]
United States domestic market. [konicaminolta.us]
German domestic market. [konicaminolta.de]
Many [konicaminolta.cz] , many [konicaminolta.co.nz] , many [konicaminolta.com.au] , more [konicaminolta.ca] domestic [konicaminolta.dk] markets [konicaminolta.fr] .
European headquarters (my employer) providing European-wide services (also hosts a lot of the content that appears on the various countries' sites) [konicaminolta.eu]

Really pretty simple and clear for the most part.

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

YttriumOxide (837412) | about a year ago | (#43044209)

My employer has esesntially that set it.

Holy hell, what was in my lunch that made me type that?!

I think I probably meant to type: "My employer has essentially the same."

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

ebh (116526) | about a year ago | (#43044525)

Too bad they didn't go the other way too: us.konicaminolta.com, uk.konicaminolta.com, etc. Were I registering domains for a big company selling to consumers, I'd register anything they might reasonably guess. (Plus use geolocation to guess for them.)

OTOH, people use Google (etc.) so much that the actual domain names almost don't matter--just click on what Google found. (I still can't remember our public library's convoluted domain name even though I go to the site a couple times a week.)

Re:They don't appear to be used much anyway. (1)

ledow (319597) | about a year ago | (#43043899)

Well, working for a solicitors, you should ask them.

I would think the first answer that would spring to mind is "UK jurisdiction of law applies to the ownership and management of the domain name".

When another firm in the US kicks up a fuss about that solicitor doing something, or arguing over ownership of the name, or arguing about services provided from that name, they will be in their own jurisdiction and your UK solicitors will have to work in a foreign one to allow their business to continue to operate from that name.

Sure, it's a minor thing that may never happen, but isn't that how solicitors make their money?

100% wrong, they are very frequently used (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43044601)

I work in a solicitors in the UK. Our website address is .com, as is the address from a huge majority of solicitors who I have to look up daily in order to write to them.

What was the point of you writing this? You must know it's clearly wrong. "dot co dot you kay" is as well-knows as "dot com" in the UK. Of the 10 "local results" that come up when I type "solicitors" into Google, nine have a .co.uk domain for their website.

And how about: argos.co.uk, three.co.uk, orange.co.uk, bbc.co.uk, guardian.co.uk, telegraph.co.uk, dailymail.co.uk, mtv.co.uk, ...

They don't seem as popular as .de in Germany (15M domains), but they're a lot more popular than .us (only 1M domains in a much bigger country).

Translation (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#43043505)

Nominet couldn't get agreement on how to get there from here

Nominet couldn't figure out how to extort most money from the inevitable rush on the new domain space.
(They could try and figure out some method of costfree assigning .uk to existing .co.uk or .org.uk and have some difficulty reaching an agreement on how that would be done fairly, but I highly doubt that is the issue they're facing).

Re:Translation (0)

blane.bramble (133160) | about a year ago | (#43043537)

Or possibly, if you read the consultation documents and responses, Nominet asked it's members and listened to what they had to say.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043777)

You must be new here.

Should be .gb not .uk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043523)

As per ISO 3166, the correct two-character code for that country is GB, not UK. The TLD ought to match.

Unfortunately, changing *.uk to *.gb would be about as easy as the IPv6 switchover...

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year ago | (#43043615)

Actually the .gb domain does exist [dnstools.ws] for historical reasons.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043619)

Actually it would be trivial:

Step 1: Introduce the new TLD .gb
Step 2: Make a ruling that no new .uk domains can be registered (so the set of .uk domains can only shrink, not grow).
Step 3: Give everyone who already owns an .uk domain the right to get a .gb domain at no additional cost, provided it points to the same servers.
Step 4: Gradually raise the cost of .uk domains to make it more attractive to have only a .gb domain.
Step 5: As soon as most people migrated to .gb, let .uk domains expire, i.e. don't let people renew them (with sufficiently long pre-warning time, of course).
Step 6: After the last .uk domain expired, remove the .uk TLD.

Note that unlike with IPv6 you don't need extra infrastructure for everyone to support .gb domains.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (1)

xaxa (988988) | about a year ago | (#43044651)

Step 6: After the last .uk domain expired, remove the .uk TLD.

That shouldn't ever happen. It would break huge numbers of old links, and disrupt other uses of domains (unique identifiers etc).

Accepting it won't ever happen, there's little point every trying. The UK code is reserved by ISO (will never be allocated), due to the potential for confusion.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (1, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | about a year ago | (#43043641)

And .uk should be the TLD for Ukraine, not .ua

Historical reasons/powerful players (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044655)

There's a good reason for that. It had to do with power, history and languages (French/English). And Ukraine was after all under Russian control at the time. When the UN was founded the Russians insisted of course they be treated as a separate entity.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (4, Informative)

LQ (188043) | about a year ago | (#43043657)

As per ISO 3166, the correct two-character code for that country is GB, not UK. The TLD ought to match.

Unfortunately, changing *.uk to *.gb would be about as easy as the IPv6 switchover...

Oh, Christ. Don't get me started. It should never have been GB in the first place since GB is only a subset of UK. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terminology_of_the_British_Isles [wikipedia.org] .

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043723)

It's a subset for the time being, but should Scotland secceed it will merely be an intersecting set.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (1)

petermgreen (876956) | about a year ago | (#43044015)

It's messier than that.

"Great Britain" is the main island (containing engliand scotland and wales)
"The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" is the whole country
"United Kingdom" is a term that currently usually reffers to the above country but there have been other united kingdoms in the past.

In general when forming their country the ISO has preffered to use geographic terms from the country's name over parts of the name that represent how it is currently governed even if those geographic terms don't precisely line up with the countries current borders. Taken in this light the GB and IE country codes make perfect sense.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (1)

colfer (619105) | about a year ago | (#43044401)

At one time there were three countries without much geography in their common names:
United Kingdom (of...)
United States (of...)
Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (no geography at all).

Then there's the (Roman) Empire and the (Roman) Catholic Church. Anglicans talk about a "catholic" church, meaning "universal," which is confusing.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43044725)

But it hasn't been a "Kingdom" since 1953 or so

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (2, Insightful)

ChunderDownunder (709234) | about a year ago | (#43043699)

ISO is just plain wrong.

Consider Northern Ireland - a part of the United Kingdom. Neither .gb nor .ie (Republic of Ireland) would apply.

Re:Should be .gb not .uk (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043839)

ISO isn't wrong. Although GB literally stands for "Great Britain" it has historically been used as an abbreviation to represent the UK including whichever bits of Ireland were under Westminster's control at the time, and the myriad islands immediately off the coast. And it is still in current use: for example, Northern Irish cars driving in France have to display a "GB" sticker.

In short, Great Britain is an island; GB is a country code representing the UK. Ahistorical wikifools struggle with this.

Problems with .uk (4, Informative)

malx (7723) | about a year ago | (#43043715)

Part of the problem was one of precedence: many holders of domains under .co.uk, .org.uk and several other existing subdomains were happy with the idea of getting a shorter domain - but very unhappy with the thought that they might lose it to a competing domain owner with the same name in a different sub-domain - or even to a trademark holder with no exact equivalent at the moment.

Another part of the problem was Nominet's proposal for "security". In the name of building "trust and confidence in .uk" Nominet had proposed to extend itself from traditional registry options to scanning websites for malware, and using its power to suspend domains to enforce clean-up. Not surprisingly, this was controversial.

Note also that Nominet has said it might come back with some variant of these proposals later, perhaps extending its "security" scheme to all the existing .uk domains.

Reverse notation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43043755)

Note that in the early days, the UK had a different domain naming system where the country code was first, then descending down into further detail.
Like uk.co.bbc (instead of bbc.co.uk)

Pity that they abandoned that, instead of convincing everyone else to use it.

Most-significant/highest-order first (1)

jabberw0k (62554) | about a year ago | (#43044235)

Eminently sensible. ".com" should have been "us.co." from the start

An added advantage would be automatic prepending of your local country code, and perhaps even your choice of second-level, if omitted -- so "http://ge/" would map to us.co.ge for USA users and uk.co.ge for users in Llandudno.

Plenty of fun to be had with this system too, http://co.co.chanel/ [co.co.chanel] and http://be.me.up.scotty/ [me.up.scotty] for starters.

Re:Most-significant/highest-order first (1)

Miamicanes (730264) | about a year ago | (#43044957)

> Eminently sensible. ".com" should have been "us.co." from the start

No, forcing everything into country-level hierarchies makes about as much sense as forcing people to go to some abomination like www.microsoft.co.wa.us.

Country-level domains are useful for identifying sites applicable to residents of a particular country.

Re:Reverse notation (1)

colfer (619105) | about a year ago | (#43044499)

Are you sure that was part of thee DNS? Usenet used that kind of hierarchy: humanities.classics, humanities.design.misc, alt.binaries.nice, alt.tv, etc. Also, you see DNS names reversed like uk.co.bbc in algorithms. Makes a much more readable sorted list.

Re:Reverse notation (1)

blane.bramble (133160) | about a year ago | (#43044521)

I believe you mean JANet and the NRS, which used names along the lines of UK.AC.

Does anyone even care? (3, Insightful)

LoztInSpace (593234) | about a year ago | (#43043825)

Don't most people find their way to a site from a search engine or links off another page? Quite frankly, to me urls are like phone numbers or email addresses - they can be important but once they're in the system I let that take care of them. I can honestly say I do not know any of my friends' phone number or email address or any URLs of note - why would I?
One world, one internet, one stupid bit of identification that gets abstracted away within seconds. Why make the distinction at all?

Re:Does anyone even care? (1)

Captain Hook (923766) | about a year ago | (#43043995)

One world, one internet

One single naming scheme with a limited number of meaningful words which has to support every user/organisation/company and product globally, even if most of those thing are only relavent locally.

Re:Does anyone even care? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044047)

"Most people don't use urls" sounds like Microsoft's "most people run applications maximized".

Combining these two leads would lead to an interesting operating system. All applications are full screen (Metro), and there's only one allowed web browser, which doesn't have a url bar but a search engine bar (Bing) that refuses to understand urls.

There would be some somewhat obvious problems like when trying to watch one window (e.g. pdf viewer) while using another (e.g. word processor). Or seeing an advertisement/hearing of website/whatever which gives you an url instead of instructions "search for these keywords". But I'm quite sure Microsoft would be interested to implement it, if they aren't already doing it.

It hasn't been abandoned! (2)

Going_Digital (1485615) | about a year ago | (#43043967)

It hasn't been abandoned see their news release http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest/update-directuk [nominet.org.uk] The problem was that in the original proposal they intended to give priority to trademark proprietors but this was campaigned against mainly by domainers who stood to loose out. A majority of useful .co.uk domains are held by domain prospectors and the original proposal would have meant that other people would have had a chance at registering a domain by showing some sort of entitlement to it. Now however nominet are suggesting that they look at changing the proposal to "A revised phased release mechanism based largely on the prior registrations of domains in existing third levels within .uk" effectively making it a simple domain tax where exiting .co.uk & org.uk domain registrants will feel obliged to take the option to get the .uk version of their domain. The whole idea is is a farce and nothing more than a money making exercise for nominet. They claim that there was broad support for new 'features' such as addres verification. They have however not demonstrated an valid reason as to why they need to start selling domains in the .uk space rather than simply applying these new 'features' to the existing system. Nobody stands to gain anything from the direct.uk proposal but despite that nominet seems the be determined to try again, what does that tell you ? I would encourage people to send in their complaints to policy@nominet.org.uk

But why .co.uk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044009)

Can someone please explain me (like I'm five) why .co.uk has been used in the first place instead of the .uk?

Re:But why .co.uk? (1)

Going_Digital (1485615) | about a year ago | (#43044069)

for the very same reason .com and .org are used to make it possible for business and charities to both have a useful domain name.

Re:But why .co.uk? (1)

tubs (143128) | about a year ago | (#43044145)

Nicked from Wikipedia

.ac.uk - academic (tertiary education, further education colleges and research establishments) and learned societies
.co.uk - general use (usually commercial)
.gov.uk - government (central and local)
.judiciary.uk - courts (to be introduced in the near future)
.ltd.uk - limited companies
.me.uk - general use (usually personal)
.mod.uk - Ministry of Defence and HM Forces public sites
.net.uk - ISPs and network companies (unlike .net, use is restricted to these users)
.nhs.uk - National Health Service institutions
.nic.uk - network use only (Nominet UK)
.org.uk - general use (usually for non-profit organisations)
.parliament.uk - parliamentary use (only for the UK Parliament and the Scottish Parliament)
.plc.uk - public limited companies
.police.uk - police forces
.sch.uk - Local Education Authorities, schools, primary and secondary education, community education

All seems rather sensible, I thought.

Re:But why .co.uk? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044417)

In Canada the naming system is much simpler. .ca - only Canadian individuals and organizations may register .gc.ca - Government of Canada - should be required for all government departments and agencies (rcmp-grc.gc.ca, dnd-mdn.gc.ca, etc.)

Some government agencies or departments use .ca for marketing / recruiting primarily due to stupid people in society (forces.ca - Canadian Forces recruiting)

I would like to see municipalities required to use .[municipality].[province|territory].ca.

No Canadian organization or person should be able to use the US TLDs so that in essence the US TLDs become the equivalent of .gov.us and .edu.us for example. In other words, keep it simple and comprehensible for the typical second grader.

Re:But why .co.uk? (1)

blane.bramble (133160) | about a year ago | (#43044555)

.co is short for COmpany or COmmercial depending on your viewpoint. The purpose of DNS is to organise things neatly. So, in the correct spirit of this the UK name space has a nice organised set of sub-domains (see above or below for someone posting the Wikipedia list of them). Because people are stupid/lazy they don't want to learn to understand why this is good, and someone proposed flattening the layout for DNS at-large (the proposed .apple .microsoft etc.) and Nominet thought maybe they should do the same with their bit of it.

It'll be alright. (1)

ButchDeLoria (2772751) | about a year ago | (#43044089)

You can always just get Cook Island domains.

".earth" some day? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#43044121)

Perhaps the day will come when we all have to put "dot earth" at the end of our domain names.

And of course eventually "dot earth dot sol" after that.

Re:".earth" some day? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year ago | (#43044711)

"

Perhaps the day will come when we all have to put "dot earth" at the end of our domain names.

And of course eventually "dot earth dot sol" after that.
"

Impractical until we get FTL communication - who wants to wait 9 years (at least) for a webpage to load (eg from Alpha Centauri)

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...