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!

First New Generic Top Level Domains Opening

Soulskill posted about 6 months ago | from the enjoy-getting-gouged-by-your-registrar dept.

Networking 198

umdenken points out that the first batch of generic Top Level Domains will go live within the next several days, including .bike, .guru, .clothing, .holdings, .singles, .plumbing, and .ventures. (Early access began Jan. 29th.) ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade says there is currently huge demand for ICANN to reopen their program to let companies run their own gTLD. He said, "Many, many brands and many, many communities didn't know about the GTLD program. I get significant amounts of questions about when can we open the next round, because certainly there is a bit of angst that if Canon [who applied for the .canon gTLD] uses this to do an incredible mass customization campaign to win users to their product, I'm sure the brand next to them will say "Why aren't we doing this?" So I do believe this will snowball. But many will find a .com or whatever they have now will be good enough, and I believe that one excludes the other." He also said the $185,000 price tag to do so is likely to drop.

cancel ×

198 comments

Just saying... (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132495)

This is a terrible idea for the internet but a great idea for the businesses (eg. custom marketing like the summary mentions) and ICANN (because who wouldn't love large wads of cash!)

Can anyone give a few points on how this is good for the general internet user?

captcha: complete

Re:Just saying... (4, Insightful)

game kid (805301) | about 6 months ago | (#46132593)

The general internet user gets to be tracked, advertised-to, and generally fucked over as usual. But the address bar will look swag with that .bike in it, yo.

Re:Just saying... (5, Insightful)

mikael (484) | about 6 months ago | (#46133141)

Now you can make your domain name look like a USENET discussion forum:

alt.fashion.goth.clothing
comp.languages.cobol.programmer.guru

Re:Just saying... (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46133699)

Cue scammer in 5, 4, 3...

Re:Just saying... (1)

FatLittleMonkey (1341387) | about 6 months ago | (#46133239)

It would have been more honest to ban generic terms for TLDs (except the big five), and instead require the new TLDs to be the names or reasonable abbreviations of the controlling registrars. So instead of ".bike", they would have registered... wait they're called Donuts? Seriously? You gave a TLD to a company called Donuts? Sigh. Okay, bad example. But you get my point.

I think there is a lingering cringe against companies (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) having their own private TLD. But, in practice, that's all the new TLD are, TLDs owned by private companies for commercial gain. All the current system does is make it more obscure who controls each TLD, and more difficult for companies to control their brand IP.

It would be more honest, and more useful to the general internet user, if any companies could buy their TLD-name from ICANN for a fixed amount per year. (If they want, ICANN could restrict it to companies that have multiple public-facing services.)

I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have .apple for their services. Microsoft, .microsoft. Google, .google or .goog. ICANN makes say a $million/yr per registrar, users can better see who is whom (I mean, what the fuck is .guru?). Everyone wins.

Re:Just saying... (3, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 6 months ago | (#46133735)

Well, I could think of a few reasons why Apple should not have .apple. One of them being that there's allegedly a fruit by that name that even allegedly has older rights to that name.

But in general, what good would it serve? So FINALLY, after all those years, the internet community learned that their company can be found at "www.company.com". What would we gain by getting ".company" now instead? Aside of having to reteach everyone? There is exactly zero net value to the internet users.

What? Oh, we could be certain that .company is actually $company? We already can if $company gives a shit about its domain name. It's trivial for $company to win the rights to "www.company.com" from the average domain squatter. And if they don't give a fuck, well, then .company won't save you from a scammer either because guess what, they can register that themselves. It's fairly trivial to open up $company in some country the name of which ends in -stan and claim the TLD. If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?

So what exactly do you expect from .company? Personally, I see exactly zero benefit. Well, aside of the benefit for the ICANN because everyone HAS to buy his .company TLD lest some scammer does.

Re:Just saying... (4, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 6 months ago | (#46133257)

Can anyone give a few points on how this is good for the general internet user?

The presence of a custom TLD on a website is an instant indicator for me that the website is almost certainly a flash in the pan marketing project, not being taken very seriously by its owners, and probably not worth my time to click on the link.

Pluses all-round I'd say.

Re:Just saying... (1)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 6 months ago | (#46133533)

New domains like these are difficult to sell as advertising hooks because so many common folk insist on adding '.com' to the end of anything other. But in what way are they bad for the Internet?

Re:Just saying... (1)

Monoman (8745) | about 6 months ago | (#46133671)

Money grab. Without enforcement on TLD usage (new and old) they can be meaningless.

Can I register .n or .jb? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132501)

Won't be running my own mail service, promise.

Re:Can I register .n or .jb? (2)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46133361)

What about a top level domain .corn? Of course only to be used for things related to agrarian products. ;-)

Generic? (4, Insightful)

tgv (254536) | about 6 months ago | (#46132503)

Nobody knew about GTLD? Perhaps that's because .bike isn't really "generic", is it? And it's pretty Anglo-centric too.

Re:Generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132891)

it's the same nonsense as internationalization in appications which should actually be called nationalization.

Re:Generic? (1)

gigaherz (2653757) | about 6 months ago | (#46132959)

Intern... I18n is the process of making an application aware of different ways to display text (such as LTR vs. RTL), different number formats, different currency formats, etc. Since usually applications are designed for the formats used in the developers' culture, adding other cultures to an application means opening it up to other nations, thus the application becomes international. You are probably thinking of localization (l10n), which is the process of taking an internationalized application, and making it actually support a concrete culture (language, reading order, numeric formats, ....).

Re:Generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133045)

.bike is that the new American euphemism for .xxx. Its weird how Americans are rabid for the free market until it comes to sex.

Re:Generic? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133163)

Pretty sure that's now .plumbing,

Re:Generic? (1)

Smask (665604) | about 6 months ago | (#46133209)

Naah, that's for IT services.

Re:Generic? (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about 6 months ago | (#46133387)

.bike is that the new American euphemism for .xxx. Its weird how Americans are rabid for the free market until it comes to sex.

As far as I can tell, the Americans are all for sex-free markets. ;-)

Re:Generic? (2)

ganjadude (952775) | about 6 months ago | (#46133599)

This american would prefer free sex markets

Re:Generic? (1)

Grismar (840501) | about 6 months ago | (#46133083)

I agree with your point about it being Anglo-centric.

Unless of course the Igbo-speaking Nigerians really wanted a ".automotive" TLD, the Japanese wanted ".bicycles" or the Yoruba in Benin wanted ".healthy". :)

Re:Generic? (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 6 months ago | (#46133519)

I agree with your point about it being Anglo-centric.

Did you look at the list? The first one is in Arabic: (Just a redirect.) [www.xn--ngbc5azd] , http:/// [http] ./ probably won't work on Slashdot, so try http://xn--ggbla1c4e.xn--ngbc5... [xn--ggbla1...--ngbc5azd] instead. .VERSICHERUNG is for the "German speaking insurance industry", .BERLIN is obvious, and there's a few in Russian, Chinese and Japanese.

Re:Generic? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133127)

uh.. they have/are working on international domain equivalents in other languages too.... but I guess searching is harder than complaining on slashdot.

I am registering .MILF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132505)

You can start submitting pics of your mom and her sisters as soon as I get some websites put together.
BAM

Re:I am registering .MILF (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132749)

I want .club

For all the USA haters on Slashdot (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132543)

After the USA invented the Internet it administered the TLDs until 1998 or so, when ICANN took over.

Having an international organization that holds meetings around the world must be better than letting the bad old American government run things, right. How boring and uncreative it would've been to be stuck with dot-com, dot-org, dot-net, dot-edu, and the country-specific TLDs.

Re: For all the USA haters on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132799)

Oh I don't know. How boring has it been since 1998?
You know what's boring?
Trying to get creative with addresses.
What's next? Getting creative with home addresses? "Oh no, this isn't 123 Main Street, it's 12 with a BLUE 3 Main Street."
How long till someone gets slashdot.org.guru and puts a nice goatse up there?

Re: For all the USA haters on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132975)

We can only hope.

Re:For all the USA haters on Slashdot (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132999)

The root of the DNS zone is still handled by the US government. ICANN has a consultative role and suggests modifications, US can still veto any suggestion and can nuke a whole country out of DNS if they so chose.

"Inventing the Internet" gives you the same rights over the international Internet as "inventing the English language" gives over English speakers. If not for the DoD project, the computers of the world would have been connected using a descendant of Minitel, BBSes etc. It would have been completely different at the protocol level and completely similar at it's uses and porn availability.

Re:For all the USA haters on Slashdot (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133173)

"Inventing the Internet" gives you the same rights over the international Internet as "inventing the English language" gives over English speakers.

I think I lost your point. Are you saying that England has the right to decide if it's spelled "colour" or "color" in the US?

why do we need generic top level domains anyway. (1)

strack (1051390) | about 6 months ago | (#46132555)

why do we even have .com or .org or .net on the end. Surely the classification of organization at a address can be stored in some other way, and not be so important as to need to be typed in every time you go to that url. I mean, why cant i just type 'slashdot' in the address bar. Damn near everyone defaults to .com anyway.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (5, Interesting)

mysidia (191772) | about 6 months ago | (#46132579)

why do we even have .com or .org or .net on the end.

To identify which registration authority the domain name was created under.

Also... to distinguish domain names from just any other name.

I'll give you an example: "BOOKS"

No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS. If you type BOOKS into your browser address bar; you should not be summarily redirected to whoever happened to get there first ---- logically, you would be presented search results based on relevance.

The authority system allows, there to be a BOOKS.COM under the Commercial registration authority... that might be a book store, Or an accounting vendor....

There can be a BOOKS.ORG, under the non-profit organization reg. authority ---- that might, for example, be a library-related organization.

Then there can be a BOOKS.EDU under the education reg. authority --- that domain might, for example, be an institution of higher learning that specializes in the library sciences or authorship/book writing.

Such domains a .INFO; were added later, and Don't really fit logically in the original DNS system.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132715)

No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS.

If all TLDs were random six letter combinations, or local geographic regions, I'd see your point, but with the TLDs we have now, using your logic, ONE books.edu for all institutions of higher learning in the world is about as dumb as one books.

Either make a lot more of them, or get rid of them... doing nothing isn't solving your problem.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (4, Informative)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46132717)

That's the idea, anyway. In practice .com became such a buzzword everyone wanted one.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

reikae (80981) | about 6 months ago | (#46132719)

I think I'd prefer (there are probably issues that haven't occurred to me) if there were no generic top-level domains at all, only country codes. I realize why they exist, I just find them redundant and also slightly confusing especially outside the US; .com/.net/.org and several others are world-wide but .edu/.mil/.gov are US-only AFAIK. The distinction between .com, .net, and .org doesn't seem very clear either, if there even is one nowadays apart from aesthetics.

On the other hand, the current system works Good Enough so it probably won't and maybe shouldn't change.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132727)

why do we even have .com or .org or .net on the end.

To identify which registration authority the domain name was created under.

Also... to distinguish domain names from just any other name.

I'll give you an example: "BOOKS"

No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS.
If you type BOOKS into your browser address bar; you should not be summarily redirected to whoever happened to get there first ---- logically, you would be presented search results based on relevance.

The authority system allows, there to be a BOOKS.COM under the Commercial registration authority... that might be a book store, Or an accounting vendor....

There can be a BOOKS.ORG, under the non-profit organization reg. authority ---- that might, for example, be a library-related organization.

Then there can be a BOOKS.EDU under the education reg. authority --- that domain might, for example, be an institution of higher learning that specializes in the library sciences or authorship/book writing.

Such domains a .INFO; were added later, and Don't really fit logically in the original DNS system.

You are at the mercy of the browser vendor, not DNS. What order they autocomplete search domains in, or what search engine and its results are all that matters.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132819)

which makes you wander on the necessity of "bike" and "plumbing"...

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (4, Interesting)

houghi (78078) | about 6 months ago | (#46133001)

Why go for the example 'books'. Why not other common names like 'windows' or 'apple'.

I still ask why there were .com, .net and .org. I will elaborate a bit more. Why aere ther .com, .net and .org next to the country codes?

It would have been better (hindsight is always 20/20) to just have gone with the country codes. That way each country would have been able to do whatever they please to do. Do you want to give nobody a domain? Good for you. Do you want to limit id to just your citizens or just businesses or to everybody who pays you? Great.

The argument against this is often what about things like linux.org or similar things. When I look at the whois data, I see a US addrss, so it would have been linux.us or even linux.org.us or linux.inc.us or whatever they want to come up with.

And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
http://us/org/slashdot/tech//directory/subdirectory/file.html (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.

Anyway, we can contemplate on what could have been, but now we have this mess and it will have to do.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (2)

reikae (80981) | about 6 months ago | (#46133215)

I think that the fact that you had to point out the double slashes shows why replacing the dots with slashes is a bad idea.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133237)

Why is linux _.us_, you chauvinist clod? It's international!

What if the current guys get weary of supporting it and pass it to Mark Shuttleworth, do we have to rewrite every page referring to it to point to http://za/org/linux [za] ?

Or do we leave it where it were - and so just bunch all domains under coutries where registrars are incorporated?

It's all solving a wrong problem. The problem is you can't describe a site with a single simple category.

I've got a bike touring site, it's a hobby site, so I think I'll put it in .org... Wait, I might go commercial later, publish news and ads, do bike reviews and all that, do I put in .com too? Oh, they've got specific TLDs, do I put it in .bike or in .travel? Ooooh, and I'll add a forum and match-making for bike trips, may be I'll go for .social...

That's why Google, or Bing, or Yandex, is the actual "domain name system" since ever. You could just throw it all away and leave only IP addressing (ok, with a bit of precaution for shared hosts), because even to visit FB people now just type "facebook" into search bar and click the first link.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133241)

And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
http://us/org/slashdot/tech//directory/subdirectory/file.html (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.

Why does that make more sense than the way things are now? Should all hostnames have their dots replaced with slashes? Would the only advantage to that be that the hostname looks more like the path for URLs? If so, why not just have the slashes in the path component replaced with dots? How should hostnames be represented when they're not part of a URL?

And why should the order of the components be reversed? Is it again because that might make it slightly more consistent when dealing with the specific case of URLS? Why should the domain be changed and not the path specification?

I'm not arguing that the original choices were not arbitrary - just that flipping the order around, or replacing some arbitrary character with a different one is exactly as arbitrary.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (4, Informative)

dissy (172727) | about 6 months ago | (#46133471)

And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
http://us/org/slashdot/tech//d... [us] (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.

Actually in the 80s that is pretty much how it was.

UUCP mail was routed from one mail server to another to another before finally (hopefully!) landing in a users mail spool on a server they frequently checked more than others. This one done with whats called "bang paths" as they used ! as the separator, and the route was listed left to right ending with a double colon and the username.

Even at the time DNS replaced hosts.txt on the ARPAnet, there were still other connected networks like BITnet and CSnet using different protocols that used mixed forms of routing paths, and neither network required NSF approval to join like the ARPAnet did.
BITnet was IBMs VMS network, and anyone that had a VAX with the RSCS software installed and could afford a leased line was able to get on the network and get data to/from the arpanet.
There was a serious perceived threat from these other protocols, most of which lacked a unified or centrally managed naming lookup scheme (although that is exactly what RSCS was, although only for VAX)

At the time each protocol pretty much only looked out for their own, except for DNS which was advertized as "generic" and "non-proprietary" as only IP was required. DNS was also an open standard like IP and TCP. That was enough for DNS to "win" and become the one true naming system.

I'm not sure why they decided to use a right to left hierarchy beyond just trying to differentiate themselves from existing protocols...
But it doesn't follow the URL/URI standard because that wasn't to be invented for another 10 years or so.
As you say, hindsight is always 20/20

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46133697)

You clearly don't have a clue on is going on here. Time to turn in your geek card ( which i suspect is forged anyway ) and get off the net.

People like you only clutter things up for the rest of us.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

satuon (1822492) | about 6 months ago | (#46132817)

The way I see it, .com is the generic domain. It's not that hard to append it to everything. The only useful other domains are .edu and .gov. The national domains are somewhat useful because they let you know it's a local site, although I don't understand why they need it, really, they should just use .com also.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132985)

Top level domains exist to provide a choice of different administrative authorities which can delegate domain names to you under their rules (and pricing). Without TLDs, your only choice would be to register your domain name with the root registry, like the companies which get GTLDs now do. They pay $185000 just for applying for a domain name. With TLDs, countries with differing views (on propriety, on trademarks, etc.) can have different rules for domains under their TLD, and differently organized registries can end up with different prices. Competition, you know.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

mikael (484) | about 6 months ago | (#46133157)

In the early day of internet research, they wanted to distinguish between corporations there to make a profit, non-profit organisations, educational groups and the military. So they had ".com" = corporations/companies, ".org" = non-profit organisation, and ".edu" for the educational research groups, ".mil" for the military", and ".net" for the companies that managed the continent wide networks built from fibre-optics and satellite communications.

That gets extended to giving each country it's own domain ".uk" = UK, ".fr" = France, ".de" = Germany. It was a sense of achievement for any country to get their own top-level domain.

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

aix tom (902140) | about 6 months ago | (#46133199)

So no we have come full circle, where other entities like companies also can have that sense of achievement of having their own TLD, without much practical value besides generating cash for ICANN. ;-)

Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (1)

S.O.B. (136083) | about 6 months ago | (#46133571)

So they had ".com" = corporations/companies, ".org" = non-profit organisation, and ".edu" for the educational research groups, ".mil" for the military", and ".net" for the companies that managed the continent wide networks built from fibre-optics and satellite communications.

.com is derived from the word "commerical" [ietf.org] which includes but is not limited to corporations and companies.

Back in 1985 when .net was created I don't think there was "continent wide networks built from fibre-optics". .net was intended for network technology companies, ISPs (local, national and international) and infrastructure companies. Although, no restrictions were put on it's use so it has become a general purpose name.

Politics: (1)

Hartree (191324) | about 6 months ago | (#46132561)

Oh joy. I can just hardly wait for the race to get .obama, .clinton, .christie, .huckabee, etc.

What a wonderful advance for the intarwebs...

(sarcasm warning for the insight impaired)

Re:Politics: (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#46133129)

"Oh joy. I can just hardly wait for the race to get .obama, .clinton, .christie, .huckabee, etc."

I think the NJ governor will be saving his money for legal fees

anyway some names )like Christie) are not uncommon

$185,000 is Raqueteering (1)

deconfliction (3458895) | about 6 months ago | (#46132565)

$185,000 is Raqueteering.

Re:$185,000 is Raqueteering (4, Funny)

JanneM (7445) | about 6 months ago | (#46132729)

$185,000 is Raqueteering.

I knew tennis could be an expensive sport, but I had no idea...

Re:$185,000 is Raqueteering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132787)

It's really just a short-term game (in the grand scheme) because in 100 years we won't use a centralized name system.

If you want to see something cool, look at what the GNU project is working on with the GNU Name System [gnunet.org] . Still early days there, but sooner or later they or someone else will get a decentralized system up that really puts the traditional system on its ass.

Re: $185,000 is Raqueteering (1)

Oonushi (863093) | about 6 months ago | (#46133339)

THIS is what I want to happen sooner rather than later. The whole point of the Internet is to be decentralized, I never got why that didn't extend to the DNS system too. Fuck ICANN

Re:$185,000 is Raqueteering (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132847)

How much do you charge for .scam?

I know a Nigerian prince who would be keen to acquire it.

PS Please send your bank account details so I can pay you for it.

Here goes, milking trademark owners for more money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132569)

Looks like domain name peddlers are getting to open up their new "license to skim money off companies" scheme worldwide.

This is utterly retarded but I'm sure all Slashdot readers already knew that...

Landrush scams (4, Informative)

MindPrison (864299) | about 6 months ago | (#46132643)

Domain peddlers are going bonkers now, I tried to get my name as a .guru, but it ended up costing a small fortune...so I steered away. At first...40 bucks seems nice for a 1 year .guru name, but then there are "early registration fees" so called landrush fees that can cost several thousand dollars, and they even have hefty admin fees that costs several hundred dollars...stay away from the scammers, and they're plentiful right now.

Tiny Toons (1)

jones_supa (887896) | about 6 months ago | (#46132645)

With all the AJAX crap going on web browsers, why not go full circus also with the domain names while we are at it.

...bike, .guru, .clothing, .holdings, .plumbing (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132657)

- hold me back someone, need to hide the creditcard now, and fast.

Just block them (2)

Kaenneth (82978) | about 6 months ago | (#46132661)

I have as much trust in a random TLD as a site in the .cx TLD; and plan to just block/ignore addresses from them.

About the cost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132699)

"He also said the $185,000 price tag to do so is likely to drop"
Not pictured - him laughing and falling out of his chair.

Re:About the cost... (4, Interesting)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 6 months ago | (#46132741)

It will. The business approach is obvious: First you set the price ridiculously high, to extract as much money as possible from those who must have their domain at any cost - businesses with trademarks to protect, mostly. But there are only so many of those, so once sales dry up you gradually lower the price to broaden the market. That way everyone pays exactly as much as they can be made to pay, maximising revenue.

You just described... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133355)

..the entire capitalist system. Nice!

Re:About the cost... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133201)

"He also said the $185,000 price tag to do so is likely to drop"
Not pictured - him laughing and falling out of his chair.

Oh, it will drop...

... to $184,999.99

Now then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132737)

Who will be the first to register the f*ck.ING domain.

Re:Now then... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133461)

This town [wikipedia.org] in Austria, presumably.

Or.. (3, Insightful)

hydrofix (1253498) | about 6 months ago | (#46132739)

.. maybe it would be fairest to just cancel this whole private gTLD expansion lunacy?

i have a better idea (2)

Gravis Zero (934156) | about 6 months ago | (#46132759)

how about we just drop the farse that are TLDs? the only TLDs with any credability are .gov and .edu because those are regulated. all the other TLDs are just one big bag of everything else. nobody wants to get a .net if .com is taken because of the confusion that ensues.

.com.au (2)

Jack Griffin (3459907) | about 6 months ago | (#46132833)

Here in Australia, we have regulations (socialism!) that require anyone registering a .com.au domain to have some connection to the name in their registered business eg if I want to register bike.com.au, my business needs to have demonstrable connection to the bike business somehow. Sure some trash slips through the cracks, but on the whole works well to keep .com.au domains relatively reliable. Not sure why more registrars don't enforce similar requirements.

Re:.com.au (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132877)

Partly true.. all you really need is an ABN.

For example I have an ABN And a vague registered business name, and just register any .com.au that I like.

Re:i have a better idea (1)

egcagrac0 (1410377) | about 6 months ago | (#46132987)

the only TLDs with any credability are .gov and .edu because those are regulated. all the other TLDs are just one big bag of everything else.

.mil seems pretty controlled, too.

Many of the ccTLD's are at least superficially regulated; you have to pay more for registration and maybe even have a representative in the geographic area (which just costs more for administration).

When will that P2P DNS system become reality? (1)

billcarson (2438218) | about 6 months ago | (#46132781)

A few years ago a bunch of people from Sweden announced they would create a distributed, non-trackeable DNS system. What happened to that?

Re:When will that P2P DNS system become reality? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132815)

They didn't have the attention span and grit to finish the project properly.

one word (4, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 6 months ago | (#46132811)

.bs

Re:one word (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133225)

I've been telling people that using the new strange domains are like calling a 1-900 number and you will get a bill for visiting that site from the Internet company.

Meh (2)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | about 6 months ago | (#46132867)

Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.

Re:Meh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133007)

Search engine of choice? You must be joking. If it's not Google, it's not a search engine, it's a browser hijacker [malwaretips.com] . Search-Results.com is a minimalist edition of Ask.com but Ask is not Google, so it's a browser hijacker. Google is the only search engine.

Time to abandon centralized DNS... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46132869)

Time to abandon centralized DNS...

Teach a man to fish (1)

Adam (3469959) | about 6 months ago | (#46132925)

www.bike.com www.bike/com And he will live in nigeria

popcorn at 11 (4, Insightful)

Tom (822) | about 6 months ago | (#46132939)

Welcome to the end of a meaningful domain name system.

Yeah, I know they tried raping it before, but the world largely ignored .biz, .info, .aero and I even forgot what the others were. Or have you seen more than two domains in those TLDs in the recent years?

But brands, that was a gold mine. Advertisers are parasites and they will be happy to convince their marks^H^H^Hcustomers that they really, absolutely must have a fitting TLD now. And since in large corporations (that have the money), the people they talk to are also marketing dudes, it'll work.

It's a huge scam, but it'll rape the usefulness of the DNS hierarchy. Too bad we didn't put everyone within ICANN to the sword while there was still time.

Re:popcorn at 11 (2)

matfud (464184) | about 6 months ago | (#46133089)

there are a fair few .aero domains but you are unlikely to come across them unless you are in the industry (and many .aero owners also have more common TLD's).

Re:popcorn at 11 (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133259)

It is a huge scam. And, if you look, one company is signing up to manage them all-- through dozens (maybe hundreds) of subsidiary LLCs: donuts.co. They have applied for more than 300.

Just wait until they come out with .bank, what a shitstorm that is going to be. america.bank, is that Bank of America or someone else? All it does is create confusion for consumers and extra expense for companies that need to spend more money protecting their brand. All to line the pockets of the former marketing guys from eNom, CentralNic, NeuStar, oh, and the former CFO of ICANN.

They've spent two decades figuring out how to get stinking rich, and now you have to bend over and take it.

Re:popcorn at 11 (1)

QuasiSteve (2042606) | about 6 months ago | (#46133331)

Welcome to the end of a meaningful domain name system.

As you type this, on slashdot.org

The domain extension was originally created for non-profits, but this designation no longer exists and today it is commonly used by schools, open-source projects, and communities as well as by for-profit entities. - wiki

The domain name system hasn't really been meaningful in terms of descriptive for a very long time now. The only 'meaning' there was, for a long time, was that if you didn't have a .com domain, you might as well not exist, certainly if you were a business of reasonably large size. Heck, there isn't even a coca-cola.us .

Even now, if you have a domain name that's perfectly descriptive - say you're a business in Zambia - you're going to have more initial success with tompopcorn.com than you would with tompopcorn.co.zm , as people don't recognize '.zm'. See other comments about people ignoring the new TLDs the same way they would ignore a .cx domain (granted, part of that might be experience with some of the shadier sites that tend to choose .cx, .tk, etc.).

Re:popcorn at 11 (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 6 months ago | (#46133457)

Even now, if you have a domain name that's perfectly descriptive - say you're a business in Zambia - you're going to have more initial success with tompopcorn.com than you would with tompopcorn.co.zm , as people don't recognize '.zm'. See other comments about people ignoring the new TLDs the same way they would ignore a .cx domain (granted, part of that might be experience with some of the shadier sites that tend to choose .cx, .tk, etc.).

I don't know much about Zambia, but I'm sure Zambians recognise .zm. Only having a CCTLD is no barrier in most countries, or their neighbouring countries, which is what most businesses focus on. Search for .CX websites and there are plenty based on Christmas Island.

If I've forgotten the domain, I often guess .uk (.co.uk, .org.uk) as it's more likely to take me straight to the British website of a multinational, and less likely to take me to an identically-named company elsewhere in the Anglosphere.

Re:popcorn at 11 (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46133597)

Search for .CX websites and there are plenty based on Christmas Island

There are hardly any computers at all on Christmas Island. There are only a couple of thousand people living there, most of whom are prisoners and workers in the detention centre.
It's an interesting place but the domain was nothing but a cash grab for an Australian government owned business selling domains for porn sites at the same time they were running an anti-porn campaign to get rid of anything porn related under ".au".

Re:popcorn at 11 (1)

Tom (822) | about 6 months ago | (#46133559)

As you type this, on slashdot.org

Yes? I run a .org domain myself, which for 10+ years was the TLD you'd pick for any site that was not a company, university or government/military entity.

Sure, these days slashdot is for-profit, but it wasn't always.

The domain name system hasn't really been meaningful in terms of descriptive for a very long time now.

True, but at least it made some sense and wasn't just a total mess of meaningless bullshit.

Re:popcorn at 11 (1)

jawtheshark (198669) | about 6 months ago | (#46133709)

I have several .lu domains... Nobody ever flinches when I use them. Well some are quite surpised if I dictate my email as firstname@surname.lu but they're never surprised about the .lu part, just that it's actually possible to have such an email.
Country TLDs are quite popular outside of the US.

Re:popcorn at 11 (2)

dissy (172727) | about 6 months ago | (#46133357)

Excluding all ccTLDs, the original gTLDs are: .arpa .com .net .org .gov .edu .mil and .int
The first expansion added: .aero .asia .biz .cat .coop .info .jobs .me .mobi .museum .name .pro .tel and .travel.

Then ICANN opened this new gTLD program. The listing of new gTLDs approved are here [icann.org]

I had the idea to use it for pre-blacklisting each and every one in my mail and web filters, but opted instead to go with a whitelisting approach hoping for easier maintenance (Thus the easy copy/pasting of the list at the top - sorry, I don't have link references anymore)

The applicant status [icann.org] page makes for better comedy however, as it lists the existing company name that requested the new top-level instead of the fake company name setup to handle domain registrations. (Currently the english TLDs start at page 4)

Most make sense from the twisted world view of trademark holders, but some are true WTF moments...

Amazon for example requested some obvious ones like .amazon , .buy , and .cloud
But they also have some strange requests like .bot, .fire , .silk , and .pin

Amazon requested a whole 76 TLDs, Google requested 102, Microsoft only 11, and surprisingly Apple only requested .apple

ICANN bitched and moaned about not wanting to create .XXX for like 10 years, but they have already approved and delegated things like .dating , .sexy , and .singles

Also interesting is they already approved and delegated .democrat but have yet to even just approved .gop

Filtering on similarities shows .app has 14 requests, .art .bay .home have 10, and even 5 requests for the .tld tld :P

A whole 6 pages worth of results have objections linked to them, which sounds promising except there are 56 pages total :/

Sadly there is way too much money involved for much success of a massive grass-roots preemptive blocking and agreement to not allow such TLDs to resolve.
But I have no qualms about doing so and only white listing individual and specific domains if any of our customers or vendors go the retarded route of making their primary email or websites use one of these.

I'd give our non-english speaking friends a break, because despite the great technical problems involved at least they have a valid reason wanting a TLD in their native language.
Beyond that however, the rest so far look like money grubbing land grabs, stupid branding, or obvious scamming/spammer havens.

Re:popcorn at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133525)

(xn--6qq986b3xl) – Chinese for "I love you"

Re:popcorn at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133679)

We've been at the end of meaningful domain name systems for a very long time now. Every ".info" I've ever stumbled across is just a retarded ad portal to everyone is going to click away from. ".com", ".net" and ".org" may as well be merged together into one category, they hold absolutely zero significance on what the website is anymore. Even ".gov" and ".edu" are starting to loose their meaning, certainly have seen some shady uses of those which obviously weren't educational or government.

It really doesn't matter what system replaces it anymore. The almighty dollar trumps everything. Apparently the cost for a sane system just didn't make the budget.

.Plumbing WTF (1)

warewolfsmith (196722) | about 6 months ago | (#46133055)

How come the plumbers got a guernsey and all the other trades missed out, sure smells funny to me.

Re:.Plumbing WTF (2)

Adam (3469959) | about 6 months ago | (#46133151)

They connected up the "series of tubes" that run the new gTLD's

Time to start signing my email (-1, Offtopic)

rvw (755107) | about 6 months ago | (#46133063)

This seems to be the time to start signing my email with GPG/PGP.

Re:Time to start signing my email (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133125)

No one bothers to verify the signatures, so you'll just become known as that idiot who puts a block of shit in every email. If you ever had friends, you'll lose them soon after you start signing your email.

.guru (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 6 months ago | (#46133101)

I don't think monks living in caves on himalayan mountains need their own TLD

Its amazing how language evolves

I remeber when guru was short for "Guru Meditation Number"

My list (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 6 months ago | (#46133315)

.slash .dot .www

www.doubleu.dot

Just fight them until they becomes untrusted (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133379)

How?
Overwrite these domains in your local DNS, ban IPs if unique to these TLDs. When companies see these domains are worthless because they cannot be trusted, they won't buy them. And they will die out. It is that simple.
This is a direct attack on Internet neutrality and the very foundations of the global network. So it is justified to fight back.

What a license to print money they have! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#46133435)

| Wash., company that has spent nearly $57 million applying for the rights to some 307 new domains

Wow, that is a shit load of cash JUST to apply for rights.
Where does that money go anyway, into logging to make paper to take applications?

and

They have 1400 applicants they will grace with rights!
(tell you what..lets just add the 500 other applicants anyway)
so 1900 * $185,000 = $351,000,000, nice job America!

and

What is society getting? An easier way to put in an address at the cost of diluting the name space.

and

Who pays for this in the end?
Why little ol' me of course! The consumer.
THANKS!

Only a decade after irrelevancy (1)

dbIII (701233) | about 6 months ago | (#46133561)

Only computer geeks like us actually enter domain names into a browser these days. Google and then scan codes have made the domain names mostly irrelevant.

Stupid idea. Money Grab (1)

nurb432 (527695) | about 6 months ago | (#46133675)

All this does is confuse matters even further and create a total cluster-F.

There should be a limited number of TLDs, and be 'regulated' like they used to be ( such as no commercial entities on an .org ).

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...