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!

Is It Time For .tel?

Hemos posted more than 8 years ago | from the how-to-differentiate dept.


Vitaly Friedman writes "ICANN, the body responsible for creating top-level domains, is considering a new one. Conceived as a way to easily manage contact information in an age where many people have numerous contact numbers, the proposed .tel TLD would allow individuals and companies to keep all of their contact information in an easily accessible location. Companies would get while individuals would be able to register" This idea has been kicked around for quite a while; one of the question is the whole name-space collision issue. For instance, there's me and then there's other me. Lemme tell how strange it is getting fan mail for country music stars.

cancel ×


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

Unforseen problems (5, Funny)

robyannetta (820243) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141500)

Companies would get while individuals would be able to register

This may pose a problem with the 526,000+ people sharing the name Michael Smith.

Re:Unforseen problems (5, Insightful)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141531)

This may pose a problem with the 526,000+ people sharing the name Michael Smith.

Or the people who share names with companies [] . Or the people who share names with each other. There will be collisions. This plan will not work for its stated purpose. However, its stated purpose and its real purpose most likely are not the same. Odds are, this is just another plan to make more money for the registrars by opening up a new land rush of domain name registrations.

Re:Unforseen problems (5, Funny)

kryten_nl (863119) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141552)

Yes, perhaps we should add numbers to the back of the name. Come to think of it, maybe it would be better to define the name by numbers as well, then you wouldn't have to worry about typos and phonetic problems. Maybe this system should look something like:

Or 8 groups of 4 hexadecimal digits.


Re:Unforseen problems (0, Offtopic)

b0wl0fud0n (887462) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141590)

Actually the most common name would be James Smith. There are 4,840,833 with the first name James and about 2,501,922 people with the last name Smith. The most common female name would be Mary Smith since there are roughly 3,991,060 Mary's. Most common last names: [] Most common male first names: [] Most common female first names: []

Re:Unforseen problems (1)

(A)*(B)!0_- (888552) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141622)

"Actually the most common name would be James Smith."
The comment you replied to never claimed that Michael Smith was the most common name so "Actually" is completely out of place in your reply.

Don't try to use Slashdot to prove to others how smart you are.

Re:Unforseen problems (1)

b0wl0fud0n (887462) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141691)

The word "actually" is in the post because I hit submit too quickly and wasn't meant to "prove" that I am "smart". No offense to the slashdot community, but I don't need to use Slashdot to prove to people who I will never meet in my life how "smart" I am.

Re:Unforseen problems (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141763)

James is the most common first name.
Smith is the most common last name.
I don't see anything that guarantees they're the most common combination.

Re:Unforseen problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141684)

Why are you using me as an example? I demand to know how my privacy was invaded!

Re:Unforseen problems (1)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141764)

It won't be a problem -- they'll just need to use SSN in the domain name.

Re:Unforseen problems (1)

Siffy (929793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141810)

Gee, don't you watch any news other than /.? That would be unfair to all the illegal aliens who don't have SSNs. (Not to mention people that don't live in the US)

Re:Unforseen problems (2, Funny)

thePowerOfGrayskull (905905) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141862)

Geez, I hadn't thought about the illegals. Guess we'll have to legalize all of them so that they can have .tel domains. And -- did you say there were people outside the US? Huh. What a concept.

Re:Unforseen problems (1)

Siffy (929793) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141888)

So I hear. I've never actually seen one myself in person, so it could be some government conspiracy. As far as I've seen with my own eyes, the world may just drop off a mile off either coast.

Re:Unforseen problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141867)

Yes wouldn't that be nice for the government to have one place to search for contact information -- wouldn't be surpirised if it originated from them

.tel is ok (3, Insightful)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141502)

At least .tel is slightly international. Loads of European languages have telephone-related words beginning with "tel".

This is way better than .biz, which I can only guess that they just banged out without thinking twice about. is ok (2, Insightful)

evilbuny (553280) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141542)

Why do we need yet another TLD, this is purely a political land grab, already has proven you don't need a special TLD to do this, we have a large dataset already in operation and working. Jeff Pulver has been pushing .tel since 2000 and yet he could have built up his own zone to do this with less effort and money... is ok (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141625)

Why do we need yet another TLD...

Why do we need to restrict the TLDs at all? First make sure all countries and territories we have a name for have their name reserved. Then open it all up for registration. The rules for the domain you register will be those of the registrant, not something imposed on the TLD. ""? No problem. You want your telephone Contact your nearest domain reggistrator. You're 14 years old, immature and want an "imso.horny" adress? Register it (just don't expect it to actually help you get a date). is ok (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141658)

It was just a comment on the linguistic merit of the TLD, not the technical merit. is ok (1)

harmonica (29841) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141628)

Business is a well-understood term world-wide. It's even been included in quite a few languages, although the spelling is sometimes altered: bisness, bisnis, and so on.

Having said that, I don't see the necessity for any new TLDs. is ok (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141629)

I'm glad "random guy on the internet" approves. I can sleep good at night now. is ok (4, Funny)

wizrd_nml (661928) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141651)

In the Middle East we find this hilarious. Biz in Arabic means breast. is ok (2, Funny)

Khuffie (818093) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141776)

And soon we'll have .zib ;) is ok (1)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141845)

Perhaps the next poll should be 'Favourite TLD?' then? is ok (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141877)

Arabs laugh? I find that most intriguing. Almost unbelievable.

eliminate top-level domains ? (2, Interesting)

boxlight (928484) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141505)

Maybe it's about time we stopped conforming to top level domains?

If I want a web site, why can't it be www.boxlight -- or -- why does it have to end in .com, .us, .ca, or dot anything?


Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141512)

It's a way of organizing sites by name in a useful way. [] is the best example I can come up with on the spot.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141532)

Tim B Lee said he regretted putting the tld after the name and the double slash. It should have been http://jp.slashdot.www/ [slashdot.www] or something. Look it up.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141546)

That's sort of how it works with Usenet. But imagine if the internet was just a vast wasteland of porn and spammers. I'm glad they didn't go with that scheme.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (5, Funny)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141808)

But imagine if the internet was just a vast wasteland of porn and spammers.

That doesn't require any imagination.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (-1, Flamebait)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141610)

You condescending little shit, not only have I already read that article, but my talk of the practicalities of the real world (look it up) has nothing to do with what might have been.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

heinousjay (683506) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141634)

There really wasn't any condescension in the tone of that post. You shouldn't act so confronted, it's just a message board.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

autOmato (446950) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141543)

It's a way of organizing sites by name in a useful way.

It is - but considering the current (mis)use of .org and .net, not worth much unless enforced.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141645)

Country level TLDs are enforced. They tend to be in the control of the likes of governments and universities, and you have to do things like supply the address of your company in the country in question in order to apply. Obviously, this can be circumvented, but for the most part country TLDs (and the likes of .gov and .edu) are working well.

As for .com, .net and .org, they're the legacy of what people thought the rest of the internet would be. It's too late to start enforcing the differences now though. Too many people have personal sites on .coms, for example.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (0, Offtopic)

jeaton (44965) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141693)

Indeed, country level TLDs are very strictly enforced. Espcially ones like Christmas Island [] and Tobago [] /

Oh, wait. Country TLD's are abused just like any other TLD.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141789)

Go and try to register the likes of a .jp, .us, or and then say that. Some countries are quite picky.

You have to be right in the first place before you can use sarcasm to reinforce your point.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141838)

That isn't abuse of the system, really. I cannot go and register a .cx, .tv, or .to domain on a whim. It has to be done through whatever organization that country set up to do it. If they want to restrict it to organizations and people that reside in that country, they are free to do so. If they want to whore themselves out and make tons of money by selling domain names to other people, they are free to do so. Two good examples of this are .to and .tv. The system isn't being abused, because those countries are free to restrict or not to restrict access.

Abuse would be a corporation somehow forcing a foreign, sovereign nation to give them a domain name with that country's TLD against their wishes.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

JanneM (7445) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141652)

Let countries and territories have their top-level domains, as today, and let the unused ones free.

Country-level domains is a good example that the organization doesn't really work anymore - for every domain that's actually placed neatly in the country it belongs to, you have another that doesn't. For instance, the tiny island of Niue has a lot of registered sites under the .nu domain - but they are mostly Swedish, since "nu" is Swedish for "now", which makes for memorable domain names. Tuvalu's .tv domain is of course used for a lot of television-related sites. And with .com, .net and .org letting anybody register anything, organization is pretty much broken down by now.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (1)

hey! (33014) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141525)

If I want a web site, why can't it be www.boxlight -- or -- why does it have to end in .com, .us, .ca, or dot anything?

I've been saying this for years. Part of the reason is not rocking the boat. The current system works well enough. But I think there's fears of unleashing a tidal wave of trademark lawsuits, since TLDs, as it currently stands, can't be owned.

Personally, I think there is no fundamental reason why one should not be able to register,"HATE.MICROSOFT" so you could have "I.HATE.MICROSOFT", or "DO.NOT.HATE.MICROSOFT", etc. Other than it would be the legal equivalent of World War III , with the lawyers playing the role of raven.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141537)

Because hierarchies are how you can gracefully scale something? Look at Usenet for example, what if everything was a TLD there? What if there were no area codes or prefixes? You'd just have to remember some 10 digit number rather than more commonly just remembering 4 or 7 digits and knowing the area they live in has a certain area code. What about IP addresses? Why not just give everyone an IP address and start numbering from 000000000001 up to 2 billion something? Add static routes to the Internet core for everyone.

Re:eliminate top-level domains ? (4, Informative)

a_nonamiss (743253) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141727)

Actually, it's a function of how the current heirarchical domain system works. I'm not saying that it's absolutely required, but we would have to change quite a bit of the fundamental nature of the Internet if we eliminated all TLD's. I'm going to grossly oversimplify here, but basically, when I submit a query for, the very first thing queried is the top level domain, in this case, .com. If I were to submit a query to, the query would take a different path in resolving the name. Same with,,, etc. The bottom line is that something needs to provide the first basic direction as to how the query is resolved. is a sub-domain of .com. is a subdomain of is a subdomain of, etcerera. Without top level domains, we would basically make every DNS query a top-level query, and we would have to change the basic structure for how the Internet works. Note: for a more detailed definition of how DNS queries work, I highly recommend googling the subject. Makes for good nerd reading, and I'm sure the thousands of pages you get will do a better explanation than my single paragraph.

This is a really good idea (4, Funny)

BadAnalogyGuy (945258) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141507)

We can put it to good use like .coop, .cat, .biz, .arpa, .aero, .info, .jobs, .mobi, .museum, .name, .pro, .travel, and .int.

God knows it's time for .tel.

Phone sex (4, Funny)

thewiz (24994) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141510)

In the spirit of, I can see a porn site called being registered.

Re:Phone sex (0)

Ohreally_factor (593551) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141574)

Or a site for homosexuals in the military called

Re:Phone sex (4, Funny)

Hogwash McFly (678207) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141599)

Apparently De Beers have their eye on

Since I'm a pimp (3, Funny)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141729)

I was thinking of buying That way clients can easily find the number for a pro they like.

Re:Phone sex (1)

jkaiser (922610) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141767)

Would this be a new Porn 2.0 fad with auto suggest cup sizes?

I've already pointed out why this won't work (1)

El Cubano (631386) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141515)

In the discussion on the proposed .mail TLD [] I already pointed out why this won't work [] .

Re:I've already pointed out why this won't work (0, Offtopic)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141616)

I already pointed out why this won't work.

You mean this is a dupe? Surely not.

Intended purposes (4, Insightful)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141517)

It's pretty fun to watch ICANN and the domain industry constantly come up with new "specific-purpose" domains, which upon release sell to absolutely anyone and everyone regardless of the actual category of the site. Apart from the actually restricted ones like .gov, .mil, and .edu, sites' categories have had little to nothing to do with their domain extensions for ages now.

Who still remembers when a .com actually meant a for-profit business, or when every .org was an organization of some kind?

Re:Intended purposes (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141581)

I used to wonder about this. I ended up sticking with .net (in all my previous domain names), because I felt I could be considered as "providing infrastructure" in the form of user comment posting (which I currently don't have).

The problem, as far as I can tell, is that nobody foresaw demand for personal websites, so no personal website TLD was created. The result of this is that the mental barriers between the TLDs have been broken down. It's just the sort of thing language does when an important, popular concept somehow falls through the gaps between the words.

Re:Intended purposes (1)

CastrTroy (595695) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141737)

And maybe that's the problem. There is still no concept of a personal TLD. I've registered a .ca, because i'm from Canada, but I don't really think it's appropriate. I think there's a lot of sites that don't follow the guidelines for using TLDs. Even switched made everyone start going to to download firefox. I think that most of the problem though is with personal websites. Most people I know end up registering in .com,.org,.net, because it's easy for people to remember, and there's no correct option.

Re:Intended purposes (1)

Rob T Firefly (844560) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141755)

True. Most of my domains have been .net for that exact reason, and in some twisted way this has evolved into a weird reverse-mindshare thing, where I'll automatically attribute a "cool" factor to a site ending in .net and be more likely to check it out.

Pretty pointless imo... (2, Insightful)

c0l0 (826165) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141519)

Of course that's another chance for ICANN, VeriSign and domain name resellers to cash in without much of a hassle, due to DNS' easily extensible and robust nature - however, much like .info and .name, this TLD presumeably won't be a big hit.
The problem with all these newly introduced TLDs is that they don't ring a bell for the average joe on teh intarweb, since most casual users are familiar with .com, .net and maybe .org only, plus maybe their country's TLD.

Re:Pretty pointless imo... (1)

Gonoff (88518) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141861)

Does it really matter for most individuals that their website is not too memorable? That's what your bookmarks files (or favorites) are for.

You just send a link to anyone interested and put one in your email .sig. I remember about 3 phone numbers. The rest are in my phone. It seems the same to me...

MichaelBolton.Tel (5, Funny)

JeanBaptiste (537955) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141521)

No way. Why should I change? He's the one who sucks!

Re:MichaelBolton.Tel (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141617)

So are you related to the singer guy?

Re:MichaelBolton.Tel (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141868)

obviously, the moderators don't remember this reference to Office Space

.tel no! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141528)

.Tel with that!

Another dumb idea (4, Insightful)

Billosaur (927319) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141530)

When is everyone going to stop assuming that issuing new TLDs is going to solve all their problems? What, is it impossible for people to update the contact information on their personal web sites now, or has their been some fundamental change to HTML/XML of which I am unaware?

This is a dumb idea. I won't even touch the personal namespace problem, which should be evident to anyone with a brain. The only way that would work is if everyone had five names. You know there are going to be squabbles over company names, as old and new companies jockey for the .tel names that offer them the best marketing bang for the buck.

Need a place to put your contact information? Try ICANN needs to stop polluting the TLD pool.

Re:Another dumb idea (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141587)

All new TLDs do is make it so companies have to spend another $15/year to protect their trademarks. How often do you see two domain names with the same name but different TLDs and they are truly different sites? Yes, there are some good examples (, but for the most part, the "other" sites redirect to the main site or are parked by domain squatters.

Re:Another dumb idea (2, Insightful)

RemovableBait (885871) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141779)

The whole thing is dumb. Surely it isn't all that difficult to use subdomains, like or

If everyone adopted the format: tel.{company}.{tld} for their contact page, rather than bitching about new TLDs, then the number of collisions will be fewer (like, and the world would be just as happy.

Disclaimer: I haven't read (nor will I read) TFA.

Huh? (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141539)

while individuals would be able to register

Wow! I wish I could do that now!

-Wellington Grey []

How about... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141545)

... ?

not such a good idea...... (1)

RoyBoy333 (913177) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141549)

One stop shopping for spammers

Those who do not understand 'finger' (5, Insightful)

Gothmolly (148874) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141564)

Are doomed to reinvent it.

So lets see, we create a whole separate _TLD_ that people/companies must register, just so people can have, which is essentially a directory of who's who at

This is completely idiotic. How about "finger | grep -i 'your name'" Obviously wrap it into some kind of GUI, or do something as simple as a web front end to an existing in-house address book?

Geesh. Next someone will invent the ".mail" TLD, which is the address for, that you use to send email to. what about ".web" ?

Re:Those who do not understand 'finger' (0, Offtopic)

MrP- (45616) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141604)

Maybe if we rename finger.. but I doubt finger will catch on with the general public.

"Hey can I get your number?"
"Sure, just finger me!"

Re:Those who do not understand 'finger' (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141626)

I understand finger perfectly. I smell it afterwards to make sure it was where I thought it was. Then I let my friends smell it so they think I'm cool.

How odd (2, Funny)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141568)

Todd Masonis, a co-founder of contact management service Plaxo Inc., is familiar with the hassles of keeping track of everyone. His parents have had the same house and phone number for some 30 years, and "for a long time that was how they are identified," Masonis said.

Really? Your parents are called Mr and Mrs 945 Chestnut Street? How odd.

-Grey []

The future (0)

iXiXi (659985) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141569)

I think it is time for a new scheme all the way around. DNS was designed to make finding resources easier. Now that we are almost to the point of passing out all the 'easy' domain names, why shouldn't we develop a better solution? If I had bought, do you think that SEARS would be seeing a lot of my traffic? IPv6 will only make this even more difficult. Once we get to the point of having every single appliance we own on an IPv6 address and administrated over the Internet, we will need a better catalog based scheme that is rooted to each consumer. Something like: www.ixixi(nationalid#) I would expect that National ID #'s will have to come into play since it should be unique. Just some thoughts. I am interested to see responses as this is quite perplexing to me based on how exponentially the Internet is growing.

Re:The future (1)

The Snowman (116231) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141887)


You run a web server on your coffee maker?

-1 Redundant (1)

nickgrieve (87668) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141577)

Conceived as a way to easily manage contact information in an age where many people have numerous contact numbers


Can you get any more pointless than this? If you have a .com, you have a "Contact Us" link...

Name-space issue solution (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141579)

This should be seen as an opportunity rather than a problem, since it's a real pain in todays global society that multiple people have the same moniker. Simply require that each persons name be unique in order to qualify for a .tel, and if it isn't they must change it by deed poll (or whatever legal mechanism in their country) to be so, by addition of one or more middle or nick names, or other modification. Thus etc.

Problem solved ;).

Re:Name-space issue solution (1)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141636)

What aboout you can only register your phone number including the country code?

So I could be wow how easy is that?

Boy does this sound dumb (2, Insightful)

hrieke (126185) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141591)

.tel provides nothing that currently isn't available right now- Companies have contact pages with the information that you need to fax, phone, or email them your enquiries, people have their email and myspace pages, and all that I can see a .tel page doing is a refer URL forwarding.

I see this as another $35 per year revenue for the domain registers.

Damn $35 a Year! (1)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141716)

$35 for a domain name. Where do you register at? But yes this is definitely a lame attempt to make more domain names for more money. I've got a suggestion for the porn extension. Instead of .xxx how about .cum. It sounds like .com, and it relates to the business. I think people will enjoy saying it. You can even start a free email service called hotmale.cum.

dot everything (1)

Wellington Grey (942717) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141606)

In recent years, ICANN has approved ".eu" for the European Union, ".jobs" for human-resources sites, ".travel" for the travel industry, ".mobi" targeting mobile services and ".cat" for the Catalan language, bringing the number of domains to 264. The organization also is in negotiations to create ".xxx" for porn sites, ".asia" for the Asia-Pacific community and ".post" for postal services.

Is is just me, or is the TLD names space getting more and more schizophrenic? What must it have been like when they were deciding the name?

"OK, we'll have .com, .net, .org and .gov. That should cover it"

"What about the travel industry? Don't they need one of their own?"

"Well, I'm not sure..."

"And job hunting websites! They need one too."

"OK, OK. I'll and .jobs and .travel"

"Don't forget about Asia!"

"Oh shit yeah, can't leave out 1/4 of the world now can we? Ok, .com, .net, .org, .gov, .jobs, .travel and .asia. Good work men, I think we've covered everything now."

-Grey []

Carefully Thoughtout? (1)

SirCyn (694031) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141609)

I think ICANN has fallen in to the same pit as any other "Governing Body". We may have finally defeated the stupid .xxx idea, and here comes the next brain fart.

Just what do they plan to do about the 1.1 million "John Smith"s that live in the use (not to mention any other countries? Append a number? Gee that sound familiar.

I can see some excelent uses of the .tel domain. Especially for straightening out the IP phone problems private companies are proprietarily solving themselves. But ICANN will never think of pratical applications.

All these governing bodies should be returned to the only people who really governed well in the first place, educational institutions. But that's just my $0.02

I've got a better idea (1)

dfn5 (524972) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141621)

...the proposed .tel TLD would allow individuals and companies to keep all of their contact information in an easily accessible location.
In an age of too much communication how about a top level domain called .dnc (do not call) that has all of my contact information. Oh wait, why don't I just not make it available to everyone in the first place. Today with the "Do not call list" being so popular and being able to keep your contact information private when registering a new domain this new .tel tld seems to be going in the wrong direction.

First!! (-1, Troll)

dlc3007 (570880) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141638)

I'd like to inform everyone that I've already patented the idea of datamining all .tel address for unsolicited emails!
Now... do I make a pile of money lisencing this out to spammers or do I make myself a /. hero by preventing them from using it?

Where? (-1, Offtopic)

JamesTRexx (675890) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141654)

to keep all of their contact information in an easily accessible location

I prefer to keep my contacts in a .xxx domain.

Sounds as useful as .info (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141663)

Wasn't .info supposed to accomplish something like this? And now its just the TLD of choice for > 90% of the spamming domains that want to sell me their generic viagara soft tabs or "PE patches".

Hey! My Contact Info's Online (2, Insightful)

aplusjimages (939458) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141675)

I don't get why an individual would want to buy a domain name and server space just to park their contact information. Are they aiming for the business individual? Why couldn't I just put it on my regular website? I don't see the point in getting a domain name for this. Like the artical stated, this is overkill for something that is already done. Search engines already find contact information for companies that have it on their regular site. Plus if a company did do this it would take a while before the search engines would be it up. Googles sandbox time is like 6 months, so for about 6 months people wouldn't be able to find a companies contact info unless they found it through the company site.

FristB s7op (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141699)

OpenBSD. How Many

Too little too late (2, Interesting)

suv4x4 (956391) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141710)

It's not that I don't want to see ".tel" happen, but what is taking them so long to approve and implement new top-level domains anyway.

It's because they were so late to introduce a large variety that ".com" become synonymous with "web" and everybody wanted his site to be a ".com"

Should've they introduced domains like .tv, .biz and .tel (and .xxx) from the very beginning and at least a dozen more for each specific area of interest/business, we'd not have the ridiculous situation with domain scarcity we have today (even if, as I wrote earlier, it's still possible, although frustrating, to find a good .com domain nowadays).

This is a wonderful idea! (4, Insightful)

Tim C (15259) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141725) is so much better than!

Man, I'm in the wrong business; if only I could get paid for coming up with ideas like this...

I know the domain name I want! (1)

British (51765) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141745) []

Now I just need to find a way to get an alarm system hooked up to it.

An idiotic idea that shows domain names are broken (2, Interesting)

earthbound kid (859282) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141752)

This is a moronic idea. I'm sure someone else in the thread has explained why by now. Here's my beef though: domain names are a fundamentally bad idea.

Think about it. Do we still need domain names? People made up the "I'm feeling lucky" ifl: protocol as a joke, but isn't it true? Can't we find anything with Google anyway? Why should we have to remember a particular address with a complicated system of slashes and characters to get to a particular page? Right now, my URL is ld=3&mode=thread&commentsort=0&op=Reply [] . But this is an implementation detail. Why am I, a consumer, being exposed to this? Irrelevant implementation details should be hidden from the user! Is what we're seeing now really so far removed from showing me slashdot's IP address? We cover up IP addresses with domain names, because we know it's too hard for people to remember a series of random numbers, but why can't we go the next logical step after this?

Here's what I'm proposing:

Let's extend ifl: or something like into a real protocol. A trusted source, or better a network of user selectable sources, assigns keywords to URLs based on tagging by users via hyperlinks to the source and delicious-like tags. Normally, the URL bar shows nothing but the title the site has given itself (in our case, "Slashdot") and the particular page being viewed ("Reply to thread"), but on request, the URL bar can generate a user shareable set of keyword tags for the site with hash codes for pages to prevent collision (think about the addresses generated snipurl and the like; "ifl:Slashdot/4bacc23"). For the purposes of bookmarks, traditional URLs can be stored, but since these URLs won't be exposed to users, Ford Motor company can use a23rf2.ifl and Ford Modeling Agency can use j737bdh.ifl, and no one will care, since it won't be possible to hijack a keyword without the agreement of the majority of users. (No more Whitehouse.coms!) Domain names can stick around, so that people are free to assign multiple IPs to the same site, but the concept will become a background detail that users need to know nothing about. Until the technology is built into all browsers, URL-to-ifl translator sites can fill in the gap: "go to [] or just ifl:Slashdot/4bacc23..." but since this won't be hard to integrate into browsers as a plug-in, I imagine it can be implemented quickly.

So, what do you guys think? Am I being naive about the possibility of the keyword space being kept pure without a registrar? Need I point out that the keyword space is *already* polluted, inspite of that barrier?

All contact info in one place - FOR TELEMARKETERS (3, Interesting)

wowbagger (69688) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141761)

Yes, so I can have, with my telephone number, so the telemarketing scum can associate my name with my number and bother me.

Yes, that sounds like a GREAT idea - I think I'll also put my social security number, my alarm codes, a Google maps link to my house, a picture of my house key, and my bank account numbers up there as well.

Look, if my company wants to set up a contact page they can set up a web page under their already existing domain name. If I want a contact page, I can set it up under my already existing personal web space. What does a new TLD add to this?

Now, *IF* they were talking about a new transport class (like http:// and ftp://) for encapsulating telephone numbers, such that a link to tel://8675309 would get me Jenny on the line, that *might* be useful.

But hell - I haven't even signed up for to avoid being spammed by any asshole who scrapes my callsign (and I already have this one jackass who has done exactly that - he scraped my callsign and now he keeps adding me to stupid services like plaxo and the like, even though I've told this tool quite sharply that I don't want him bothering me.)

Something similar is already avaliable in the UK (2, Insightful)

BluhDeBluh (805090) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141799)

The domain name was originally design for but I only know of one site to use it, and that's a big torrent site. This domain name is pointless except for making companies buy yet another TLD, which really isn't required.

If .eu is any example... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141815)

In the first few days, every common name in the phone book will be registered as a domain by cybersquatters, and no one who actually has that name will be able to get it unless they pay the domain ransom anyway. Due to name collision, people will have to resort to strange permutations of their actual name anyway.

So, what's the point, other than getting some more money for domain registrars?

.tel Me Something I Don't Know (0, Redundant)

Doc Ruby (173196) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141818)

It's stupid to go through the TLD process, domain name auctions and everything else. That's why DNS already lets have without any bureaucracy other than the internal bureaucracy.

Could you imagine how much more contorted the Web bubble would have been if we had to go through this for "companyname.www"?

The existence of this stupid debate shows that ICANN is a worthless extra bureaucracy with zero knowledge or consideration of Internet design. They're just a gang of fatcats carving off their slice of global power by perverting the good work of engineers.

Has been done, zero success (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141820)

Turkish TLD authory with Turk Telecom tried this .tel thing, zero success.

Reason: Nobody wants his/her phone number all over the place.

Great for people with unusual names... (1)

MosesJones (55544) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141834)

So if you have a name that others don't have then you'll be fine. Of course if you are in the vast majority of people who don't have a unique name then unless you are quick its not going to work for you.

Genius idea, formed on the fact that "John Smith" is of course unique. Hell there have been TWO US presidents in the last 20 years who would have to argue over who got the domain name. This is before we get to countries where its more common to be known as lastname.firstname rather than firstname.lastname.

Or is part of this wonderful suggestion to have every person in the world given a unique name?

Oh hang on... its actually just a simple scam to get people to pay more money isn't it? Damn I was nearly taken in thinking it was trying to be a sensible suggestion.

Next week ".rocks" and ".sucks" you would of course what and would want to prevent people registering, double your money and double the fun.

I had a brainstrom about a lot of this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141836)

So geolocation by IP is a big deal, there are companies trying to do it for ecommerce security and then there is this whole VOIP thing and we need it so that when you pick up a phone, regardless of how it is connected, you can dial 911 and get something meaningful.

We also have this whole IPv6 monkey looming and IPv4 is showing it's age daily.

Then we have these glorified whois hacks that crop up and people want to have .xxx and .tel and .info and .personal. Maybe I'm not fully understanding this, but doesn't alot of this type stuff get cleaned up with correct whois information? Get all of the whois cleaned up and verified and then add a "contact info link" field that, I don't know, links to contact info. It might even like to something like I pick on the whois database because it's already shit and needs to be completely redone and verified, there are tons of fraudulent entries and incorrect ones; and if you want anonymity then perhaps you shouldn't buy a domain on the totally public internet.

So my idea is to start "mandating" the IPv6 IP blocks be issued and properly tracked. Address information to IP address needs to be databased and it needs to be easily updatable as well as access by various organizations to provide 911 type information. It's time to rebuild it better. Then as we do that we should also correctly and accurately database whois. VOIP could easily be the killer app that pushes IPv6. Plus there are already plans to use some of those address bits for geographic routing. It seems to me that another TLD just digs the hole deeper and it's not like ICANN are doing that great of a job to begin with.

I know (2, Insightful)

jimktrains (838227) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141841)

Why not:

ur-domain.ur-tld/contact.ext !?!?!?!?!?

Whooooo the simplicity....

Whole top-level domains concept flawed (2, Insightful)

screaser (901255) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141883)

Why do we need even more top level domains? So that companies must register yet another TLD to keep people from claiming

In the minds of the vast majority of internet users, the extension is an afterthought at best. The company I work for is a .net, but of course we had to buy the .com because everyone types it... and the .org just in case... and what's this I hear about .co and .biz??? (comment from the PHB)

Real progress would be in moving to simplify things; less top level domains. How about just one for governments, one for schools, and one for absolutely everything else?

lets get the it out of the way (1)

marafa (745042) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141902)

ppl will use the domain name like any other domain name currently in use so while u now have, and u will also have

Re:lets get the it out of the way (1)

caffeination (947825) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141915)


Great. Just what we need. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 8 years ago | (#15141916)

Another round of Apple vs. Apple lawsuits, only this time, for a crap TLD.

As if domain names matter anymore (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 8 years ago | (#15141920)

When you're looking for $company, are you going to type in $, $, $

Or are you going to type and search for $company?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>