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!

Britain Gets National .uk Web Address

timothy posted about 2 months ago | from the actually-top-level dept.

The Internet 111

hypnosec (2231454) writes 'Starting today businesses and individuals in the UK will be able to register a new national web address (".uk") and drop their existing ".co.uk" or ".com" suffix in favour of a shorter and snappier domain name. The entire process along with the transition is being overseen by private yet not-for-profit organisation Nominet, which has already started notifying existing customers with a ".co.uk" domain of their chance to adopt a ".uk" domain. Nominet will reserve all ".uk" domain names, which already have a ".co.uk" counterparts, for the next five years offering registrants the chance to adopt the new domain and to keep cyber squatters at bay.'

cancel ×

111 comments

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

Another chance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201921)

Another chance to give government bodies more money. Great.

They should add a ".uk" domain to all existing ."co.uk", ".td.uk" domains for free.

Another chance... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202019)

what so we get .co.uk.uk and .td.uk.uk :-)

Re:Another chance... (4, Funny)

dogsbreath (730413) | about 2 months ago | (#47203453)

popeye.uk.uk.uk.uk.uk.uk

Re:Another chance... (2)

Wootery (1087023) | about 2 months ago | (#47206763)

I'm surprised there aren't more people who realise than ICANN is, to use the technical term, fucking broken.

This flood of new TLDs it not good for the web. It does mean companies and organisation are basically required to register a whole bunch of domains, though, lest unsavoury types get their hands on one of the domains. And that means a whole lot more money for ICANN.

An alternate DNS root [wikipedia.org] would be a 'solution', but breaking the web into two webs would be a pretty awful way to progress things.

Gah. [domainnamewire.com]

In other words (5, Insightful)

rujasu (3450319) | about 2 months ago | (#47201925)

Everyone with a .co.uk domain name is now basically obligated to register (and pay for) another domain name within the next five years to avoid confusion.

Re:In other words (2)

just_another_sean (919159) | about 2 months ago | (#47201963)

Exactly, and better get a .biz, .info, .someothertldthatwillmakeusmoremoney while they're at it...

When I got an email offering us a .ninja tld for our business domains I died a little bit inside...

Re:In other words (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 months ago | (#47202073)

When I got an email offering us a .ninja tld for our business domains I died a little bit inside...

LOL ... I can think of so many cool domain names ending in .ninja it's sad ... My friend Mark says that he once saw a ninja totally uppercut a kid just for opening a window. ;-)

Sadly, I'm sure it will be for things more like "projectmanagement.ninja", so, yeah, I guess that might make you die a little inside.

Re:In other words (1)

afidel (530433) | about 2 months ago | (#47203335)

I wonder if piratevs.ninja is taken? =)

Re:In other words (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201985)

...and the guy with co.co.uk will control their old .co.uk domain.

Re:In other words (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202401)

It's much worse than that because a) nobody wanted a .uk TLD in the first place and b) they're about 4 times the price of a .co.uk domain FOR NO GOOD REASON (other than a cash grab, obviously).

Re:In other words (3, Informative)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 2 months ago | (#47202919)

Yeah, looks like a lot of registrars are price gouging - according to Nominet, the wholesale price is the same [nominet.org.uk] . And definitely don't ever use 123Reg because they'll even charge you to switch. Fuckers! [slashdot.org]

The only registrar I've found thus-far with the same price for .co.uk and .uk is Mythic Beasts [mythic-beasts.com] although they're a bit pricey unless you're registering for 10 years.

Gandi.net [gandi.net] don't appear to have .uk pricing yet unless I'm missing something!

Re:In other words (1)

CodeArtisan (795142) | about 2 months ago | (#47203903)

The gandi pricing appears to be $9/year for both co.uk and uk.

Re:In other words (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 2 months ago | (#47204353)

The gandi pricing appears to be $9/year for both co.uk and uk.

Truely no Bullshit(TM) - good for them! :D

Re:In other words (2)

Krymzn (1812686) | about 2 months ago | (#47202505)

They're "obliged", not "obligated". Much obligated for the opportunity to point this out.

Re:In other words (1)

rujasu (3450319) | about 2 months ago | (#47203445)

The words are synonyms. No, I don't care what your style guide tells you.

Dibbs (1)

BigIrv (695710) | about 2 months ago | (#47201927)

on F

Re:Dibbs (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202045)

goodl.uk

Dibs on goatse.uk!

Re:Dibbs (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202167)

on F

I bet Zuckerberg has dibbs on Z.

Re:Dibbs (1)

Andrewkov (140579) | about 2 months ago | (#47204443)

Crap, fc.uk is already taken..

Re:Dibbs (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 2 months ago | (#47205051)

of course it is, by French Connection [wikipedia.org] , a fashion retailer with an interesting acronym.

Moneygrabbing Nominet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201937)

As a Nominet member I voted against this (twice now, they were defeated the first time, then ignored everyone). Perhaps someone from Nominet can tell me why somedomain.uk is pre-allocated to whoever has somedomain.co.uk rather than the owner of somedomain.org.uk.

Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202161)

Yes I completely agree.

In my case, the .co.uk address is a cyber squatter. Why should he get priority over a genuine domain?

Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet (2)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47203563)

Cyber-squatters pay more money for domains than you ever will.

Hence, Nominet has really just offered a product preferentially to it's prime (if unethical) customers.

And to think we complain about ICANN not being completely "International"... Nominet doesn't even represent the interests it's supposed to at all...

Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet (1)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 2 months ago | (#47203219)

For us non-UK folks, can you explain the distinction? I mean, obviously they are different domains, but what about org.uk suggests it should be used instead of co.uk?

Re:Moneygrabbing Nominet (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203479)

Not a UK person, but I believe that they're complaining about the fact that, for instance, the person who registered london.co.uk (currently a domain parking page) gets preference for the new london.uk domain over the person who registered london.org.uk (apparently "The London Organization", which appears to be a Visitors/Business organization to promote the city of London.) Or why the (again, domain parking) owner of oxford.co.uk gets preference for obtaining oxford.uk as opposed to the University of Oxford, which has oxford.ac.uk registered.

Off the gropibt (0)

For a Free Internet (1594621) | about 2 months ago | (#47201943)

It fnopiuytrd your bungholef. Two royal yammirs of smork/// sterrrtrtf in the DOG might be the best of times, or?

Re:Off the gropibt (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201991)

Keep going, I'm almost finished!

French Connection better be quick (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47201947)

... or they'll be battling, e.g. Frederick Connors in the courts.

domain hack (1)

Peter Kowalchuk-Reid (3484611) | about 2 months ago | (#47202035)

I've been waiting for this. I pre registered kowalch.uk for making awesome email addresses. -peter@kowalch.uk

Re:domain hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202095)

What's awesome about that?

Re:domain hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202155)

Look at the author's name.

Re:domain hack (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 months ago | (#47203167)

But doesn't he really need an Indonesia domain for "peter@kowalchuk-re.id"?

Re:domain hack (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47204697)

He's a polack. Big fucking deal.

This might turn into a pr0n TLD (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202053)

Well, ----f.uk will

So Nominet is now the Ãoeber-squatter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202131)

...there can be only one.

Re:So Nominet is now the Ãoeber-squatter (1)

alex67500 (1609333) | about 2 months ago | (#47203207)

But only in UTF-8 ;-)

That reminds me.. (2, Insightful)

Virtucon (127420) | about 2 months ago | (#47202195)

"The new phonebook's here! The new phonebook's here!"
"Page 73, Johnson, Naven R. I'm somebody now! Millions of people look at this book every day!"
"This is the kind of spontaneous publicity, your name in print that makes people!"
"Things are going to start happening to me now."

- The Jerk

What about Ukraine? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202217)

Surely they deserve .UK more than United Kingdom, a farce of an aggregation of separate "countries" who love the use of the term UK unless it's football worlcup where they can send multiple teams (Scotland, England, ...). What a joke!

Re:What about Ukraine? (1)

rossdee (243626) | about 2 months ago | (#47202299)

I think United Kingdom has been around for longer as an independent country, Ukraine was just part of the Soviet (and before that Russia) empire.

Re:What about Ukraine? (4, Interesting)

ledow (319597) | about 2 months ago | (#47202337)

However, technically, the UK's identifier for everything else is actually "gb", hence we should have the ".gb" instead of ".uk".

But, first-come, first-served which is pretty much the mantra of anything to do with grabbing domain names despite the complete irrelevance of having a "particular" domain to modern computing.

Re:What about Ukraine? (2)

Alioth (221270) | about 2 months ago | (#47202373)

.gb would be less accurate than .uk - Northern Ireland is part of the UK but not part of Great Britain.

Re:What about Ukraine? (3, Interesting)

pablo.cl (539566) | about 2 months ago | (#47202677)

There should be nor arguing about CCTLDs. All CCTLDs, (except for .uk, which is an oddity) are in ISO 3166-1. The standard may be right or wrong, accurate or vague, fair or unfair, but it's a standard.

.gb would be standard.

Re:What about Ukraine? (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 2 months ago | (#47205121)

hmm. but then what would Northern Ireland get if the rest of the UK was given the GB code?

On the other hand, .ni might be an interesting code, but would surely encourage independence claims from the republicans in NI.

Re:What about Ukraine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47206637)

knights.who.say.ni

Re:What about Ukraine? (3, Interesting)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47202695)

The official ISO 3166-1 2 letter code for the UK is GB though - Short for "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

"United" and "kingdom" aren't usually considered part of a country's name according to the ISO. Although it does seem a little odd that no exception was made in this case, since the United Staes of America is US.

Re:What about Ukraine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202755)

It's odd that ISO doesn't call us something standing for "States of America"?

Re:What about Ukraine? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47203243)

Well, "States" is descriptive as well, so maybe they should have gone for am. There have been several other unions of states - Brazil was The United States of Brazil for a few years before 1945, and Mexico is the United Mexican States.

The inconsistency is what's odd. "United States" is allowed, but "United Kingdom" isn't. Either give the USA "AM" (and let Armenia work out what to call themselves later), or let the uk have "UK".

Re:What about Ukraine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203269)

So you don't think it was intentionally done this way to avoid confusion caused by misprints, then?

Re:What about Ukraine? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 2 months ago | (#47203537)

No, I don't. I'm sure there's plenty of possible confusion due to misprints.

Re:What about Ukraine? (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 months ago | (#47204633)

It was done because everyone calls America "US" already. And "UK" is extremely clear where "GB" could be Gambia or something.

Re:What about Ukraine? (4, Informative)

fellip_nectar (777092) | about 2 months ago | (#47203157)

The UK was initially assigned .gb and it's still reserved for us. But we got to use .uk too, as it made the transition from JANET NRS [wikipedia.org] to DNS easier for our pre-existing academic network.

What about Ukraine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202349)

They already have .ua

Re:What about Ukraine? (1, Flamebait)

qbast (1265706) | about 2 months ago | (#47202765)

Don't worry, you will be using .ru soon enough.

Re:What about Ukraine? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 months ago | (#47205695)

The TLD .uk was already in Britain's control. They just decided to not use that and to use subdomains such as .co.uk and .org.uk instead. There's nothing new about who is allowed to use .uk.

Re:What about Ukraine? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47206449)

what about the farce that .com belongs to the states? A collection of stets masquerading as country were the only thing they have in common is they hate their neighbours.

What is the long term future of the lesser domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202233)

I'm a happy .me.uk owner. What is going to happen to that over the next few years? Will it end up being sold off to the highest bidder once ".uk" has bedded in?

Re:What is the long term future of the lesser doma (1)

Zaiff Urgulbunger (591514) | about 2 months ago | (#47203019)

Interestingly, I had thought the rules were simply that .co.uk had rights over .uk and that was it. However, I too have a .me.uk domain but the .co.uk version has not been registered by anyone. So a whois on my-domain .uk says the .me.uk has registration rights.

Third level domain precedence (1)

mrt_2394871 (1174545) | about 2 months ago | (#47203187)

The rules are that, for the next five years, any .co.uk owner can register the corresponding .uk domain. If there isn't a .co.uk, the .org.uk owner can register, and if there isn't a .org.uk owner, the .me.uk owner can register it.

All other .uk subdomains don't get a bite at the cherry. Nor is there any protected time where a .org.uk or a .me.uk owner can register the .uk domain if the .co.uk owner doesn't want it.

.org.uk anyone? (1)

tomek.bury (1809832) | about 2 months ago | (#47202293)

For example: http://bggc.org.uk/ [bggc.org.uk] vs. http://bggc.co.uk/ [bggc.co.uk] - is the new http://bggc.uk/ [bggc.uk] going to glof club or gliding club and why?

Re:.org.uk anyone? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202451)

Don't forget ltd.uk

Re: .org.uk anyone? (1)

Teranolist (3658793) | about 2 months ago | (#47203507)

Neither because it'll be the secondary domain of bustygirlsgonecrazy.co.uk soon Porn wins against golf and gliding, don't you think?

What took so long? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202449)

No, really. What took so long?

SNipers rights (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202609)

So all of the people who sit on domain names that they registered just as the previous registration expired get to double their investment courtesy of Nominet. Great!
I'm not sure how other registrars do it but with Nominet, when a domain registration expires, the ability to re-register is only available to people who have a Nominet registrar account. So if you see that the domain that you really want is expiring then you as an individual can be ready in front of your computer to register it at the moment of expiry but someone with a Nominet account has already taken it. Now these guys get the .uk thrown in for free!

"web addresses" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202643)

Tech news from tech sites is just like any other news these days: Drivel.

This is all wrong (4, Insightful)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 months ago | (#47202737)

What we should be doing is eliminating top-level names like .com, .org, .net, and especially .mil, because these are all American-biased. Instead, every country should get its own two-letter domain (.uk, .us, etc.), and inside each of those there should be .co, .org, .mil, .gov, etc. So Twinings Tea from London would have the site "twinings.co.uk", and that's it. Apple Computer would be "apple.co.us". Multinational corporations would get sites in the country where the corporate HQ is located. No multiple domains for the same company; companies only need a commercial address, not a .net or a .org since they aren't non-commercial entities. The Apache Foundation would get "apache.org.us", the US Navy would get "navy.mil.us", the Royal (British) Navy would get "navy.mil.uk", etc.

What they've done now is just a total mess.

Re:This is all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202947)

Wait until Usenet discovers they can get paid for group names :)

Re:This is all wrong (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 2 months ago | (#47203057)

There is a .us domain. .com has just about become multinational now anyway.

Though you are absolutely correct that it's a mess.

Re:This is all wrong (2)

Grishnakh (216268) | about 2 months ago | (#47203205)

Yes, there is a .us, but no one uses it. Even US governmental entities don't use .us or .gov most of the time; lots of town governments and other entities have .com or .org domains for some dumb reason. In Arizona for instance, the DMV (they call it MVD) website is "servicearizona.com". WTF? It should be something like mvd.az.gov.us. But I guess they think that's too hard for idiots to remember. In this age of Google (and other search engines), websites don't need to be that easy to remember; if you don't remember your state's motor vehicle department website, it's easy to google it.

As for multinational stuff, I don't think that should be allowed. There's already too much debate over which country's laws should apply to a given website; for instance, should ebay.com be allowed to list historic Nazi paraphernalia? In the US, yes; in Germany, no. Whose laws apply? Well if Ebay had their US site at ebay.co.us, and maybe a sister site at ebay.co.de, the answer would be easy: their US site would follow US laws, and their German site would follow German laws. It's probably like that already anyway, but having each site explicitly show which nation it's registered in by having it as part of the name would simplify matters immensely. US authorities would have control over everything in the .us domain, and Germany would have control over everything in the .de domain, and neither would have any control over sites on the other domains. Also, domain squatting would be pretty hard because it wouldn't be trans-national: if someone sues in German court over some domain that's registered to someone else, the German court would be able to exercise authority over it if it's a .de domain. If it's a .us domain, then that company would have to file suit in a US court.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

tlhIngan (30335) | about 2 months ago | (#47203395)

Yes, there is a .us, but no one uses it. Even US governmental entities don't use .us or .gov most of the time; lots of town governments and other entities have .com or .org domains for some dumb reason. In Arizona for instance, the DMV (they call it MVD) website is "servicearizona.com". WTF? It should be something like mvd.az.gov.us. But I guess they think that's too hard for idiots to remember. In this age of Google (and other search engines), websites don't need to be that easy to remember; if you don't remember your state's motor vehicle department website, it's easy to google it.

It IS too hard for idiots to remember. Basically, if you don't have a .com, your only means of being found is Google. (And we all know how Google can be fickle).

People automatically assume .com on everything, so much so that even Netscape will try a lookup of "www." what-you-typed ".com" just in case. (Yes, Netscape).

Service Arizona sounds like a governmental portal site - which through a bunch of advertising everyone probably will just type servicearizona.com out of habit as a one-stop shop to do all your state government tasks.

They'd definitely not remember service.az.us or something like that. Hell, they'll probably complain as to why their web address is so hard to remember.

Oh, and don't forget Google plays a part of this, since SEO has made it so domains and such get a better match. "Service Arizona" will have a better match as servicearizona.com or service-Arizona.com than service.az.us. It's why every site now puts the page title in the URL even though it's completely unnecessary since the ID is embedded in the link. It matches better on Google.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203863)

> Netscape will try a lookup of "www." what-you-typed ".com" just in case.

And, it is still causing problems today. Twenty-five years ago when I first got on the Internet, we all understood hierarchies and would often use hostnames rather than FQDN, for example, just the name prism. Also, we used the next level of the hierarchy if we wanted to access a server in another department, for example prism.cs if we were under the .eng hierarchy. Now Netscape, aka Iceweasel, will send the hostname you typed into to Google! Not only did they break DNS. They also feed your private information to marketers without your permission. Google, of course, does the same with Chrome.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 2 months ago | (#47203971)

Annoyingly, it will also do this for unqualified local names also if the website is down. So if there's a problem with a local app, you get redirected and you can't even F5 until it comes up. Not to mention, as you say, the potential for broadcasting private information to the local web.

Broken by design.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 2 months ago | (#47203983)

local web->public web.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 months ago | (#47204663)

We have a ton of idiots in California, but ours is: www.dmv.ca.gov

Re:This is all wrong (1)

gbjbaanb (229885) | about 2 months ago | (#47205419)

But if the .com domins went away, the idiots would have to get used to the new naming system and you can guarantee there'd be a load of information on mainstream news sites telling people what has happened, why and what to do about it.

Generally, they use Google for the .coms anyway.

It would have an advantage of spreading the .co.xx domain names around anyway, rather than having the pretty poor arbitration and cybersquatting that goes on at the moment. Slashdot.co.us - no worries. Certainly better than Slashdot.com/uk or uk.Slashdot.com that some sites tend to use for country-specific sites.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

pnutjam (523990) | about 2 months ago | (#47204425)

SSL certs are to blame for some of this. I you are trying to get azdept.com and you have registerd azdept.com, you can get that no problem. If you are trying to get dept.az.gov.us you need to get your ssl approved up that whole chain. The owner of .az.gov.us, the owner of .gov.us.

It's a painful process.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 months ago | (#47205731)

That has nothing to do with it. Both .uk and .co.uk are at the registrar level. No problem getting SSL for either one. dept.az.gov.us would be a subdomain of a registered domain. Not the same thing at all.

Honestly, even subdomain validation works fine if you have administrative emails on that subdomain. Maybe EV-SSL is different in that regard. I have worked with a reseller account for SSL and don't see any isue.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

psyclone (187154) | about 2 months ago | (#47205809)

No, not for SSL. It's only a single certificate for: www.arent.new.gtlds.fun.wtf

However, you are correct for DNSSEC, the roots must sign .wtf, which must sign fun.wtf, which can then sign the A record for www.arent.new.gtlds inside the fun.wtf zone.

Re: This is all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203127)

That would be orderly, sensible and effective.

That's why it won't happen.

Re:This is all wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203549)

You can do your part to fight the mess. When someone says "Go to [x] to see [y]!". Reply "Are you trying to trick me? [x] is in [z]."

Table of [x] [z] pairs:

youtu.be Belgium
goo.gl Greenland
bit.ly Libya
me Montenegro
tv Tuvalu ...

Re:This is all wrong (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203653)

Youre absolutely right - freedom of choice is so messy and makes it hard to figure things out. Someone should do something about that.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

sudon't (580652) | about 2 months ago | (#47203733)

What we should be doing is eliminating top-level names like .com, .org, .net, and especially .mil, because these are all American-biased. Instead, every country should get its own two-letter domain (.uk, .us, etc.), and inside each of those there should be .co, .org, .mil, .gov, etc. .

Hey, that actually makes sense!

Re:This is all wrong (4, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47203985)

So Twinings Tea from London would have the site "twinings.co.uk", and that's it.

And who'd go around remembering that Twinings is British, Sony is Japanese, Audi is German and so on? If it's sold here, I expect a localized version of their website in my country's domain (even if it's just a redirect to $brand.com/countrycode, as so many do), the country of origin is only marginally interesting. It makes guessing the correct domain harder without the use of Google, not easier.

No multiple domains for the same company

Let's forbid anyone doing anything about domain squatting. And won't this be massive fun during mergers, acquisitions and spinoffs.

companies only need a commercial address, not a .net or a .org since they aren't non-commercial entities.

The world and their dog already has a dotcom no matter what, you're trying to clean a pool that has more piss than water in it.

Stop the madness, just accept globalization as a fact and move the whole .com to become root domains at reasonable prices and that's that. Google is just "google", Twinings Tea is just "twinings" and let Apple the computer company and Apple the music company and Apple the produce company fight over who's "apple", absolutely nobody wants their domain name to be some kind of unique categorization down a tree, it's "google" not "google.searchengine". Reserve the two-letter domains as special cases for nations and let the free market settle the rest. Practically there's no problem, are you Tesla building cars? Get teslamotors.com and the whole thing is solved with 99% less drama.

Re:This is all wrong (1)

PRMan (959735) | about 2 months ago | (#47204643)

Well. All you guys DID start squatting on OUR Arpanet...

I wonder if fc.uk is taken (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47202803)

Certainly an attention getter.

Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? (2)

greenius (300851) | about 2 months ago | (#47202843)

With all the spamming and phishing going on, I don't understand why more businesses don't use the *.ltd.uk and *.plc.uk domains which can ONLY be registered by the legal owners of the Limited company or Corporation, preventing people from domain squatting and adding a level of trust similar to https.

Re:Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? (1)

Richy_T (111409) | about 2 months ago | (#47203067)

.com is .king.

Re:Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203581)

Probably because the general public don't know that. They trust .com more than anything else.

Re:Why don't businesses use .ltd.uk and .plc.uk? (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 2 months ago | (#47204397)

Because websurfers, being a flighty and difficult to please lot, think that .ltd.uk is black magic and refuse to go anywhere near it. Srsly.

The useless appendix (1)

WombleGoneBad (2591287) | about 2 months ago | (#47203195)

Man : "God, why did you give me this useless appendix? it serves no purpose, and it gave me appendicitus"?
God : "Ah i see you have trouble with that appendix, what you need is MORE OF THEM!!"
Man : "Eh? uehah wait a moment... "
God : "Sure, that one i put in first wasn't really in the best spot, the next five i put in will be much better... "

Seriously, i don't see why we cant just drop ALL top level domains entirely. 'google' not 'google.com' 'slashdot' not 'slashdot.org' etc. if businesses really want to split their traffic up by country, or otherwise distinguish themselves they can do it with subdomains any way they see fit (e.g. uk.google ). The idea of humans distinguishing between 'hotpants.org' and 'hotpants.com' is fundamentally flawed.

That will mess up the public suffix list (1)

dskoll (99328) | about 2 months ago | (#47203355)

The public suffix list [publicsuffix.org] will need revision, I suppose.

That's awesome (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47203679)

I can't wait to be price-gouged.

Captcha: Persons

Friends United UK anyone ? (1)

craznar (710808) | about 2 months ago | (#47203693)

Can we visit their website?

Oh f... (1)

Chris Pimlott (16212) | about 2 months ago | (#47203911)

Quick, someone get me in contact with Orchard House Foods [ohf.co.uk] ...

Jayhawks (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 2 months ago | (#47204189)

This reminds me of the inanity of a certain supposed educational institution that insists on calling itself 'KU'.

"Oh, so you're Kansas University."

"No! We are the University of Kansas!"

"So... you're UK."

"NO!!! That's Kentucky! We're KU!!"

Lather, Rinse, Stupid.

Re:Jayhawks (1)

u38cg (607297) | about 2 months ago | (#47204409)

Reverse Polish naming. Calm down.

Re:Jayhawks (1)

MiniMike (234881) | about 2 months ago | (#47204767)

As a graduate of the U of I (no, not that one, the other- no not that one either. The good one. No, not that good one. Nevermind...) I can sympathize with the confusion aspect of this (although at least we keep our letters in the right order).

Where (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47205137)

Okay, how do I get mine?

.uk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47206073)

funny, I was just getting used to seeing .co.uk top level domain in my address bar when I visit a website in the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. gonna be weird seeing .uk without its .co counterpart.

.ruk? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47206255)

If the Scottish independence referendum is won in September, would the suffix not have to be changed to .ruk or whatever the initials the state that represents the rump UK would choose to call itself?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>