Slashdot Log In
ICANN Proposes New Way To Buy Top-Level Domains
Posted by
timothy
on Wed Oct 29, 2008 01:20 PM
from the how-about-vending-machines dept.
from the how-about-vending-machines dept.
narramissic writes "Late last week, ICANN put up for comment a new top-level domain (TLD) proposal that would open up the market for generic TLDs on the Internet, basically allowing anyone with $185,000 to buy a new TLD. ICANN has based the cost of a generic TLD on what it believes will be the cost to evaluate applications and protect the organization against risk, said Paul Levins, ICANN's executive officer and vice president for corporate affairs. Any excess money would be redistributed based on the wishes of the Internet community, he said. As of late Tuesday, there were only a couple of comments on the proposal."
Related Stories
[+]
ICANN Releases Draft For New TLDs 168 comments
NdJ writes "Looks like a whole new domain name battle ground is about to open up. ICANN have just made available their How to Apply for a New Generic Top-Level Domain Draft Applicant Guidebook. It won't be cheap for the individual, but certainly achievable for many domain-name-pimps. 'The Evaluation Fee is designed to make the new gTLD program self-funding only. This was a recommendation of the Generic names Supporting Organization. A detailed costing methodology — including historical program development costs, and predictable and uncertain costs associated with processing new gTLD applications through to delegation in the root zone — estimates a per applicant fee of $US185,000. This is the estimated cost per evaluation in the first application round.'"
[+]
US Government Responds Harshly To ICANN gTLD Plans 133 comments
ICANN posted its proposal for expanding gTLDs late in October, and now the US government has issued its scathing response (PDF, 11 pp., linked from there), from the departments of Commerce and Justice. The initial criticism is that John Levine sent a note to a policy mailing list and summarized the concerns raised as ranging from "...insufficient attention to monopoly and consumer protection, to lack of capacity to enforce compliance, to overreach into non-technical areas such as adjudication of morality, to what they'll do with all the extra money since they are a non-profit. Their first concern is that in 2006 the ICANN board said they would commission a study on economic issues in TLD registrations such as whether different TLDs are different markets, substitutability between TLDs, and registry market power, issues which are fairly important in any new TLD process. Here it is two years later, they're rushing to set up the new TLD process, but there's no study. 'ICANN needs to complete this economic study and the results should be considered by the community before new gTLDs are introduced.'"
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Now I can finally register clownpenis.fart !
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck. I predict a fierce bidding war for .fart.
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Interesting)
In all seriousness, we have enough ghetto TLDs already...Shelling out 200k for a TLD that may languish in obscurity forever sounds like a risky proposition.
The only real use I see for it is for sites that are forced to register massive numbers of subdomains: having your own TLD would give you a lot of flexibility in that situation. Otherwise? I'm just not getting it.
Parent
And what happens with local hostnames? (Score:5, Interesting)
Many of us have named many of their local machines with a short name having no dots. Maybe as many use have a search setup for their local domain. So what happens if I happen to have a local machine named "tube", and someone decides to register the "tube" TLD and puts an A record on it, which he most likely will -- after all, if you owned a TLD, wouldn't you put your website there?
You got it right, a big mess. And that's just the first thing that comes to mind that open TLD registration might disturb.
I don't have any problem with TLDs being a mess. There is no way to put such a big system as the world DNS in good order and keep it tidy, and after you are used to it, it doesn't make much difference. It might even be better, or at least no worse, than it would have been if there were strict rules about who and what.
However, opening the main namespace for open registration sounds to me like a bad idea. That's a big no-no for me. Especially when it is everyone's main domain namespace, and we are already using it excessivly for a lot of stuff.
The good thing is that the impact wouldn't be that big as, while many companies could afford a TLD of that price, I hope there won't be a huge rush for registrations, and honestly, I don't have any boxes named 'ms' and 'ibm', and even if I have, renaming one or two wouldn't be much a trouble.
But even then, this shouldn't be allowed. At all.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
More than it's worth? Sex.com never even came close to making back it's...hem...wad.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
On the subject of bidding wars, how will they handle multiple applications for the same TLD. Will it be an auction? (no I will not RTFA)
And beyond that, what if a TLD is determined to have value far exceeding $185k? Maybe that seems like a strange question, but it just seems like giving a private organization permanent control over TLDs is a system that might need to be overthrown or subverted in the future.
But maybe that's just me thinking funny things. I do think there's something disturbing about th
How do they define administrative costs? (Score:5, Insightful)
Firstly, ICANN doesn't do all that they should now to "manage" domains and if they're going to add more, then they should do a more honest job of determining the level of service they will commit to for what is, let's face it, a discretionary option. Nobody NEEDS their own TLD. This is about things that are optional. That being the case, isn't it long past time that ICANN committed to having some sort of effective system to address, for example, claimjumping? I lost a domain a few years back because I was in the hospital for two months, in and out of conciousness for several weeks of that, and yet some fucker has been able to come in and take my domain, use it only to get traffic on the subjects I used it for, and my host provider and everybody else I talk to says that basically I'm screwed. Where the hell is ICANN at a time like this?
Afaict, from the first ten pages or so of TFA, the only costs they assess are those of reviewing and processing the application, which is not how any rational organization would approximate them, Even after the application, there will be costs of some sort to maintain the damned thing and afaic, for something this discretionary they should set the bar higher and commit to providing better service, service that costs money, services like domain ownership arbitration, and then estimate the total costs to incorporate that level of service.
In another point, from spagetti suppers at smalltown churches to sale of air rights by private schools, there is nothing unusual about a non-profit treating sale of non-essential goods as a profit opportunity. The term "non-profit" is an oversimplification, as anybody who has gone around selling candy for their sports team knows. We know that some people would pay tens of millions for their own TLD and we know that nobody NEEDS their own TLD so why shouldn't they charge at least a few million each?
Parent
Re:How do they define administrative costs? (Score:4, Informative)
"Where the hell is ICANN at a time like this? "
That is nothing to do with ICANN's mandate, which is purely technical administration. You have a legal problem. Icann doesn't do anything about spam or ponies because they're not technical issues. Instead Icann focuses on, um trademark stuff which the government thinks is technical. Plus you're not rich enough for them to care about.
Now, as for this "we'l do good things with the money" crap. I aint getting fooled again. The NSF directed NSI to retain 33% of all original domain names sales to put into an NSF "intellectual infrastructure" fund. "Intellectual infrastructure" was people and this money was for workshops, research grants and to, in the words of the man who made the fund, "keep the IETF *process* (not the ietf per se) pure".
Congress appropriated it and gave it to Mike Roberts when he initially captures ICANN, for his useless Internet2 backbone. Never mind companies all over the world paid into that faund.
Plus, if they want companies to be able to survive risk better, why are they taking 180K from them. How many companies are lest risky cause they gave away 180K for nothing?
Now if it were me and I wanted to test a TLD I'd proably just tell you guys about it and by morning, of the server was still standing, I'm sure I'd have a pretty good idea what works and what doesn't.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Yes! (Score:4, Funny)
A mysterious Nigerian benefactor has offered to transfer the entire .spam TLD to me. I'll receive 10% of everything, and all I need to do is transfer a few personal details to him...
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Yes! (Score:5, Funny)
You were just waiting 10 years to say that one, weren't you? :-)
Parent
Coming soon... (Score:5, Funny)
What about? (Score:2)
www.eat.me
etc...
Pete and Repeat walk into a bar (Score:5, Informative)
http://tech.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/10/24/1716233&from=rss
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Dear idiots that moderated the parent as Offtopic - the story is a dupe. The link is to the original /. posting of the story. Now go email CmdrTaco and tell him you're too stupid to have mod points.
Hmmm... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I call dibs on omg.wtf!
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Pffft. Screw that. goatse.x!!!
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
Just wait until someone gets FuckYou.Jesus
Parent
Re:Hmmm... (Score:4, Funny)
I think 'dot' would be an ideal TLD...
http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot]
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
;)
Re: (Score:2)
Even better:
http://slash/ [slash]
Why use a dot when you don't have to?
Internet governance and the common man (Score:5, Insightful)
I hate to be cynical (no, that's a lie, I love to be cynical), but what's the point of commenting on this to ICANN.
ICANN has proven again and again that they listen to corporations and governments (mostly the American) but really couldn't care less what the general internet users want. Or even what the general internet users need. Sure, they'll put up some superficial show of consulting the community, but it never amounts to much.
ICANN has been bought and paid for. Really, the only way a normal internet user can comment on ICANN's actions is to take their business elsewhere (ie. alternate DNS roots).
Re: (Score:2)
I was thinking of that. Is there an alternative DNS base out there?
Possibly one that propagates the entries of ICANN, but has it's own entries as well?
Re:Internet governance and the common man (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re: (Score:2)
Hard no, but it would take quite a while to sort through anything to find an answer that met my criteria (notice the second question). I figured if anyone knew any good options, they could take a few seconds to type them out if they felt like being nice, and if not, then no harm no foul.
Truth in advertising? (Score:5, Insightful)
This sounds like a pretty bad idea. The first thing that comes to mind is the wholesale registration of TLD's for typosquatting.
At least they'll be able to register a proper domain: .con
Re: (Score:2)
That's the only plus I see from the hefty price tag...Maybe the bastards will bankrupt themselves.
Just fraking stop (Score:5, Insightful)
Do we have the basic TLDs? yes, stop...
Does pretty much every country have its own basic TLD? yes, stop...
whoever came up with this idea, please, stop...
especially for that low a price... maybe for $1.85 billion, but not $185,000.
ICANN needs to learn how to play solitaire, maybe then they'd get the reason they're there.
(hint, it's the first rule of both business and IT... "whatever you do, don't touch it").
The question we should ask ourselves (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, this is a terrible idea for reasons already brought up. [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
>>Is how many orders of "herbal viagra" do you need to sell to pull in $185,000 to register .v1agra (or other such clever alternate spelling) to run your spamming operation with no registrar oversight ever again?
That would be awesome. I'd setup my local BIND servers to think they are the TLD for .v1agra and point it all to 127.0.0.1. I would then block any e-mail coming form @*.v1agra.
But the majority of spammers wouldn't do this because of how easy it is to block.
What I can see is a security nigh
Re: (Score:2)
edit: I want to point out that I uppercased my URIs and /. forced them to lowercase.
Problem? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
.html might be even more interesting
Suffixes FTW! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Hah - I'm going for .sucks
microsoft.sucks
cocacola.sucks
linux.sucks
bush.sucks
slashdot.sucks
I'm gonna be rich!
Cost Plus Pricing is Stupid (Score:2)
Apparently these jokers do not know how valuable a TLD is. $185,000 is all you would charge? This needs to be well north of $185k more like $18 million. I will buy the TLD .xxx for $185K tomorrow and then make somewhere north of $50 MM off everyone else.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
.extort TLDs (Score:3, Insightful)
So what I want is to buy .extort1 as a TLD for 180K and then basically open up shop
so anyone who wants to get foo.com but can't afford it can get foo.extort1 instead.
This means the owner of the name foo will have to pay me to keep their brand pure,
since they'll want to own foo.extort1. Then when I need more cash, I can make a .extort2 and
start selling foo again as foo.extort2 unless foo again pays me to hold their brand.
Well, ok, so probably .extort1 won't sound so good and no one will want to visit it so the
foo owner may not care. But if foo is a brand of shoes and I buy a .shoes or a .clothes or a .footwear or a .america or a .united-states or a .united-states-of-america or a .english-speaking
or even nuisance names like .go or .yes or .buy or .super or .comm then there are going to be lots
of opportunities to extort the owner of foo.com over and over and over.
And to whose benefit? Are there really so many businesses in the world that need domain names? An awful lot of decent domain names don't command much of a price these days now that there are auction sites that show them side-by-side so you can see that the space is really rich with options, and now that domain sales agencies already suggest dozens of reasonable name combinations not yet taken.
This is just a scam pushed by people who want to make money, and it just causes the little guy who is trying to build and protect a brand to scramble. Coke or Disney may not have much trouble covering, since it's a tiny fraction of their operation, but someone trying to build a reasonable brand from nothing may have a great deal of difficulty. And yet, big companies can already afford to just buy out whatever names it wants (or push people out by applying appropriate legal means around an established trademark). And smaller operations can better afford to use a longer name than they can to get a good short name and then never be able to protect it because of a proliferation of more-or-less-duplicates under different top level domains.
And none of this considers the way that heuristics work in text editors, recognizing foo.org as a URL without anyone having to say. When .anything can be a domain name, how will text editors know whether you just forgot to insert a
space or you intentionally wanted to auto-highlight something as a domain name.
There are plenty enough domain names. The one thing there might not be is a fair distribution of them across non-English languages or non-US countries. But that isn't what it sounds like their mechanism will fix. If anything it will take the existing problem and compound it.
Complaint address (Score:4, Informative)
I strongly encourage people to write to that address and voice your opinion on the issue. That is, after all, why it is called a public forum.
Re:money? (Score:5, Funny)
Since it's going to be spent according to the wishes of the "Internet community", I can only assume 95% of it will be spent on porn.
Parent
Re:money? (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:money? (Score:5, Interesting)
Since when are your eyeballs the "community".
The Internet, like television, has become a farm, where website developers raise eyeball-bearing click-monkeys like you and sell them wholesale to advertising resellers.
Once again, as with TV, you are not the customer of the Internet, you are its product.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"wishes of the internet community"
That's just like "The American People" politicians keep talking about: the wealthy top 0.001% Internet Community.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Worse than that. They expect the application fees to "protect against risks". Now, just what 'risks' could that possibly be? It's not like they could hit somebody with a truck, or a building might fall on somebody. Just what sort of risk is involved in maintaining a database that links tediously formatted names with a 32-bit number?
Let me count the reasons... (Score:4, Insightful)
Perhaps because it's a blatantly obvious cash-grab by an organization whose ostensible purpose is to serve the Internet community, but instead lives off of it parasitically?
Perhaps because it would require many people to register multiple domain names (possibly thousands) in order to protect their brands, or else leave them open to be registered by squatters and phishers.
Perhaps because there's just no legitimate technical reason for it?
Perhaps because it would be a giant pain in the ass and probably break various pieces of software, requiring people who have no interest in the issue either way to expend energy on it?
Those are just the things that come immediately to mind.
Parent