Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Technology

Hundreds of New TLDs Coming — Question Is When 103

Posted by timothy
from the getcher-squatter-gun-ready dept.
netbuzz writes "A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains could be headed for the fast track to implementation or something more akin to the back burner, depending on what ICANN makes of public comments due to close at the end of this month. At most immediate issue is whether the process of granting these new TLDs will feature a pre-registration process that proponents say is necessary to accurately gauge the depth of interest and skeptics fear as moving too fast too soon. Says one critic: 'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Hundreds of New TLDs Coming — Question Is When

Comments Filter:
  • The process could be really fast or not-so-fast! We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast. Full story at 11.

    • But we'll take your money now...

    • by node 3 (115640)

      The process could be really fast or not-so-fast! We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast. Full story at 11.

      It's worse than that. This hemming and hawing is based on the misguided notion that we need to know how things are going to turn out before rolling it out. Nobody knew how the Internet itself would evolve. Sometimes you have to just put things out there, and let the people work it out. Even worse-case, it's not like this is going to cause the Internet to collapse, or cause a spike in road deaths or armed robberies or anything. At worst, it might mean there are even more domains that no one uses, and at best

  • by ionix5891 (1228718) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @07:58AM (#30789724)

    slash.dot

    • h t t p colon slash slash slash dot slash dot dot dot

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      I remember the good old days back around 1998 when people used to bitch about Slashdot using the .org TLD when they should have been a .com because they were commercial and had advertising. Now the Internet is going to be totally fucked and non-hierarchical. This plan must have been approved by the same kind of people that see no problem injecting /29 subnets into the global BGP routing tables.

    • My favorite URL right now: “to”.
      That’s it. Enter it in your address bar, and press enter.
      (In the rare occasion that it doesn’t work, you can try: “http://to.”)

      But wouldn’t Fatboy Slim’s homepage be more like: /.-./.-./.-./.com.com.com....com

      Unfortunately, it would be hosted on 127.0.0.1. ;)

  • This should be kind of interesting to the /.ers. The 2009 Public Comment Fourm meeting minutes [icann.org] produced an interesting document called the Standards for Morality and Public Order document [icann.org]. A summary of key points:

    Legal research was conducted in selected jurisdictions in every region of the world in order to develop standards for the implementation of a dispute process for the GNSO recommendation on morality and public order.

    Sitting and former judges on international tribunals, as well as attorneys and law professors who regularly appear before them, were consulted on appropriate limitations found in the legal research that could be incorporate into workable standards.

    As a result of the legal research and consultations, the four identified standards are: (i) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; (ii) incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin; (iii) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or (iv) a determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to equally generally accepted identified legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under general principles of international law
    I. Introduction and background

  • Bluring the lines (Score:3, Insightful)

    by sakdoctor (1087155) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @08:19AM (#30789810) Homepage

    That's just going to blur the lines between TLD, domains and subdomains.

    http://sport.sport.sport/ [sport.sport.sport]
    Without the protocol, I'm not going to parse that as a URL at all.

    • by Philip_the_physicist (1536015) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @09:26AM (#30790142)

      Agreed. IM(NS)HO, it would be better if the only gTLDs were .arpa, .tel, and .int. .eu should be deprecated as it isn't a country, and EU sites belong under eu.int. .gov and .mil should be under .us, and so probably should all the other gTLDs, except .cat (I have no idea what to do with that). For the other gTLDs, there should be the option of free transfer to the corresponding .us domain, and a ban on any further registrations of transferrals of ownership, so that they die out.

      In this way, local prejudices, customs, and taboos can be respected by the registrar, without all the arguments over .xxx and so on.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by blackest_k (761565)

        .eu has some value since its a common trade area.

        I can buy from any where within the eu without being charged import duty or VAT. unlike buying from an american site or asian ect.

         

      • by grantdh (72401)

        Insightful???? I thought he was joking! :)

    • by thogard (43403)

      I already block most new TLD in my DNS server by adding my own root zones for them. Too many of the recent TLDs are just way too full of scammers.

    • by Daimanta (1140543)

      On the other hand it might be helpful with links like bork.bork.bork

    • Wait until it’s

      sport://sport@sport.sport.sport:sport/~sport/

  • Whoever registers the .con TLD will become ipso facto the king of phising...

  • purpose ? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @08:25AM (#30789838) Homepage Journal

    To me, the major issue appears to be that ICANN doesn't have a clear vision on what the purpose of TLD is.

    In the past, we had two types of TLDs: One for geographical/political designation (country TLDs) and one for organisation-type designation (.com/.net/.org/.mil/.edu).

    The ones they added, and which I think everyone agrees were utterly stupid, are a mix of lobby-dumbness and content designation (.info, .pro, .aero)

    What we need is a clear view on what the meaning of the TLD should be. But since we don't get that, because ICANN doesn't have a vision at all, we'll end up with a mess of crap, no matter which way they turn.

    • Re:purpose ? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Antique Geekmeister (740220) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @08:40AM (#30789912)

      I'm forced to disagree with your thoughtful comment. They know quite well what the _purpose_ was, and what it can be. What they're confused about is how to make money off of it. ICANN is funed, primarily, by registrars. But the opportunity to open up new revenue by selling off additional, duplicate hostnames in multiple domains is apparently irrestible, and they seem unwilling to take responsibility for managing the dominant ".com" domain properly. So they're delegating responsibility for it, and intend to collect the revenue from the top-level domain owners.

      There are technological and social reasons to want more domains, but I'm afraid they're swamped by the potential for expanding the revenue stream.

      • by gbjbaanb (229885)

        then it still beats me why we don't have a .xxx TLD. Apart from policies demanding no porn on non-XXX domains (at risk of having it revoked) it'd make the filtering software work, and produce a lot of revenue from porn operators.

        Also add another TLD for gambling/betting sites, and you'd raise a ton of money.

        I guess the problem is more political - ie the looney politicians who'd say it was just the internet being a den of terror for non-christian activities, not realising that all those things are already th

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by AndroSyn (89960)

          What counts as porno? What is considered tame in Western culture might be considered pornographic in Saudi Arabia for example.

        • by metamatic (202216)

          then it still beats me why we don't have a .xxx TLD. Apart from policies demanding no porn on non-XXX domains (at risk of having it revoked) it'd make the filtering software work, and produce a lot of revenue from porn operators.

          Porn sites that want to be filtered correctly can already get filtered by categorizing themselves as porn using PICS [w3.org]; the information will be picked up by IE, Safari, Surfwatch, etc. There's no need for a special domain. So basically, a .xxx domain wouldn't get us any filtering ab

    • by dnsdude (1713006)
      I disagree, ICANN has a clear purpose for adding TLDs: funding. The primary reason ICANN wants to add TLDs (and sooner rather than later) is because it raises money for them. Everyone who applies for a new TLD sends a check to ICANN as their first step. It doesn't matter whether the TLD is successful long-term or not, if they have enough applicants, they can raise lots of cash. Top salaries at ICANN increased 74% in one year (http://gordoncook.net/wp/?p=274) between '06 and '07. Rod Beckstrom makes $1M
    • I think TLD's should be used to organize fraud to make it easier to manage. We just ask all tricksters use the .con TLD. similarly, people with intent to bomb should be steered towards a .terror TLD. or perhaps a more generic .violence. Also, TLD's should be translated, so that in French the TLD is http://alqaeda.terreur/ [alqaeda.terreur] if your language setting is FR. regardless of wether the URL is .con, .fraude, .terreur, .terror, .violence, .violencia, etc... We would then have a simple means of implementing htt [faqs.org]
    • Re: (Score:1, Redundant)

      by AbRASiON (589899) *

      Have to agree, the meaning is quite important to designate how they should be used.
      Are those COMPLETE IDIOTS still banning .XXX? It's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard of and instant filter for adminsitrators of kids stuff, schools, business's to stop (some) porn in these places instantly, very very simple but you guys here already knew that, it's these idiots which don't.

    • by MrSnivvel (210105)
      Why should TLDs have a purpose at all should be the first question. They're just arbitrary. Let there be a complete decentralization of the domain name space. It's not like names magically gain integrity by having a current address. If that were the case, .gov should be the picture of piety.
  • What are TLDs? Answer text strings in the ROOT servers DNS.

    The only problem here is the registrars, who want to be able to continue to charge $20/year for next to nothing,

    these are, generally the same people that charge $100/year for snake-oil CA certificates.

    This con should have been stopped 10 years ago but it is another thing caught up in the US corporation+politics mess and will require a 1000 page report to do nothing.
    • Re:Dumb, Again (Score:5, Insightful)

      by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @09:17AM (#30790078)
      Reduce the price of maintaining a domain name, and it's only going to increase the instances of domain-squatting.
  • There's been no big clamour for new top level domains most of us have lived with the available ones for years. But licensing a load more TLD gives domain registories a chance to sell a lot more domains, many of them just extra names for existing sites. So registories make a lot of cash.

    ---

    Internet Advertising [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]

  • by stephanruby (542433) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @08:33AM (#30789872)
    The original summary reads as follows:

    A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains into the Internet has reached a crossroads: The plan will either be accelerated or delayed based on public comments due at the end of January.

    I'm glad that here at Slashdot, we have submitters/editors that dumb down the original summaries for us.

  • Article list .food as an example of a TLD that someone might want to register.
    What if they get rid of the cyber squatters that own food.net and food.org - but where's the profit in that.
    • "Aug-14-2007: Food.net [food.net] is not for sale and has not been for sale. Thank you for visiting. "

      Those damn open source zealouts, it doesn't seem like they're budging.

      • by welsh git (705097)

        I hate the cyber squatters and typo-squatters, but I don't think a generic word like food can be considered squatting.

        Remember, domains can be used for far more than www, so the lack of a web page means nothing.

        I would like to say that they shouldn't be able to have .net because they are not an ISP, but unfortunately, that rule has long since died.

  • Probably after Dec 21, 2012

  • The old baltic kingdom of Prussia [youtube.com] requires a top level domain.

  • ... why?

    There is a group in the German captial that want's a TLD .berlin. I always wondered, what they would do with it. If i want to find Berlin's website now, i'd try berlin.de or www.berlin.de. What would the future web address be? www.berlin? How can i be sure i end up in my capital and not in Berlin, TX (i'm pretty sure there is one :-)

    This just deepens our dependence on search engines.

  • Long overdue (Score:2, Interesting)

    The only reason that .com was so popular was due to marketing; practically no one in meatspace knows what .com even means. It's just a freaking address for Christ's sake. We need a metric shit ton of new TLDs so that we can get away from "premium" TLDs. It's a lot like when they rolled out 888 and 877 toll-free numbers; 800 numbers commanded a premium, due to marketing. it's a just a phone number, if your customers can find you who cares? Besides, do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough n

    • Besides, do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough not to call you or visit your site because you don't have an 800 number or a .com domain?

      Um, I think that most businesses would say yes.

      -=Steve=-

      • I've hat to deal with really stupid customers in the past. In this economy maybe, but really stupid people are more trouble than they're worth. Of course I have a business providing a professional service. If you're selling widgets then yes, I stand corrected.
        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bingoUV (1066850)

          But stupid customers are so easy to part from their money. Companies can't just resist loving stupid customers.

    • fuck domain squaters.

      I completely agree with your sentiment.

      Having said that, I feel a bit hypocritical because I discovered that my name was available in my country's tld (firstnamelastname.tld) a couple of weeks ago so I immediately registered it and added it to the half-dozen domain names that I currently use for various legitimate business enterprises.

      However, I have no immediate idea what to do with my new firstnamelastname.tld domain name, yet. I put up a generic webpage with

  • by nurb432 (527695)

    Dilute DNS even more.

    • Not really. Well not IMO. The point of DNS is to take something human readable and perhaps human memorable and turn into something that the protocols can use. In fact there really is no need for levels and dots at all, well not technically.
    • by Lennie (16154)
      I think someone should register: .cdn

      I see a lot of domains now being registered twice, ytimg, yimg, fbcdn, etc.
  • Several things imo.

    As websites increase in number, the typical need for more unique domains increase. If a significant number of unique names are all tried to pull from a small number of TLD's, this makes it more difficult to find an available name that fits what you are trying to do. A substantial number of domains are tied up because of the squatters.

    If the REAL cost was ten bucks a year or so to keep a domain, the squatting would go down. Remember when .com was $50.00 a year? The really juicy names would

    • by dnsdude (1713006)

      I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays. With no TLD at all.

      Uh, I'm pretty sure both Wordpress.com and Facebook.com end in the TLD .com. Which is entirely the point.

      • hah... yes, that was QUITE garbled. That is not what I meant, that there wasn't any TLD. I realize that is what my words said, however.

        More clearly, I hope: "I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays. Without having their OWN DOMAIN NAME."

        I should proof more clearly before I click on the submit button.

  • ICANN proposes hundreds of new TLDs for cash-grab.

    From TFA:

    The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a pre-registration process for organizations that want to apply for new domain name extensions, such as .jazz, .sport and .food.

    This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets (ie.: .coke, .ford, .msoft, etc.). This is really not how the do

  • ICANN messed up tld long time ago by not keeping it simple and putting profits ahead of consumers best interest.

    Gov, com, edu etc are essential and geo/ country domains are also required due to the recent localization of search. Who uses .travel or any of the other major tld currently in operation? Nobody because they are not marketed properly and confuse people.

    Some new tld will be solid for large niches in the internet (.porn, .xxx, .city, etc) and could be profitable, but the costs associated with

    • The artificial scarcity created by limiting .TLD's to a select few makes it feasible for domain squatters to squat on typos. The TLD's were completely open (any possible), then the economics of typo-squatting start to suck because they have to pay for far more domains to hit a lucrative one. If, say, IBM consolidated to a single TLD (.ibm), they would keep some other domains for legacy purposes, but more than likely, it's harder to typo-squat a TLD than a sub-domain because there are fewer letters to mes
      • Artificial scarcity = competition for a limited marketplace which will happen anyway with opening up the final wave of top level domains. This is no different from the current tld model except ICANN is going to try and gouge big companies for the most amount of money possible. If anything it stops innovation and entrepreneurship in small business who can't afford such ridiculously expensive fees.

        In the end .com will still be #1 in consumers minds. Big companies have already invested too much into their

        • It's just an economic argument. Whether you view investment in domains as boon or bane, opening up TLD's will make far more 'land' available... given supply and demand, this should make the price go down... and also make it necessary to own more "land" to make the business profitable. You say that your business model is viable. The point is just that opening up TLD's reduces that business's viability.
  • by transami (202700) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @01:09PM (#30791784) Homepage

    I have a much better idea. Get rid of the gTLDs altogether. They are an arbitrary crutch to begin with. Without them we could have freeform domain names and end the silly quabbles over myname.everytldthereis.

    What they are up to now looks more like damn money making scheme.

    • by hwyhobo (1420503)

      That's what this messy scheme essentially is, except that instead of doing it cleanly, as you propose, it offers another TLD boondoggle. It "solves" the problem of one failed institution by introducing 100 new ones.

      TLDs were a wrong solution to begin with, introduced redundant names, forced people to buy multiple domains to protect the uniqueness of their name (made tons of money for the registrars that way), but no one wants to admit it. Better to make a clean cut. Scrap this whole nonsense now.

    • Nobody stops you from setting up your own TLD servers. It’s really easy actually.

      If you got a good reason, and can drag others into your views, so they care enough, go ahead!
      I’ll support you! The only reason I don’t have my own TLDs, is because I have not found a use for them.

      I guess it would be easier, when we would just use DNS like a free graph. You know. Not a list. Not a tree. no directed hierarchy. A graph. Because reality never is a single hierarchy. (Which is what also causes the m

    • by vanyel (28049) *

      Exactly! All additional tlds do is confuse end users and make it easier to for phishing scams to work. we should phase out everything but .net and the country code tlds, and keep those only because it makes it relatively easy to tell a given word is a domain vs something else. .net for the global internet and the country codes for sites of regional interest.

  • Dot Dot? (Score:2, Insightful)

    by synthmob (1067848)
    We need a .DOT domain -- that'll confuse somebody....
  • All this so they can try and sell us .abc, .bcd, .cde, .def and other versions of the domains. Big money for domain registrars.

  • Are we getting .blog yet? Actually that fad's kind of gone and Facebook is the new blog, so maybe .social . How long can these TLDs be?

  • Finally clownpenis.fart can be real.

  • by grantdh (72401) on Saturday January 16, 2010 @06:38PM (#30794406) Homepage Journal

    This could have a fascinating result:

    1) Organisations sign up to host their own "so cool" root domain, expecting that lots of companies will be "forced" to register their key words in the new root domain

    2) Companies finally wake up and say "WTF? We don't need this shit" and don't buy in

    3) Lots of organisations who did #1 realise they're not going to be able to make enough to pay ICANN let alone cover their costs

    4) Scumbuckets come in and start domain-squatting, setting up crap sites, etc

    The above may well lead to:

    5) People stop trusting domains and use search engines more (it's happening more & more now anyhow - most people can't remember even simple domains and use search engines to find them)

    6) More legal cases for domain-squatting and illegal use of registered trademarks/keywords/etc

    7) No more "gold rush" mentality for the opening up of new TLDs

    8) Bad press for ICANN and fewer groups willing to take part in the next "all new territory" TLD funding drive (leads to less $$$ for ICANN)

    Yeah, I'm just dreaming. ICANN is rapidly joining the RIAA & MPAA as a prime example of a bloated, self-serving organisation that's doing all it can to hang onto a way of existance that's no longer viable :(

  • I don't know where to start first:

    • Cybersquatting; companies have to register even more so they won't loose their precious brands. Maybe they should fix domain squatting before adding extra TLD's?
    • Scripts on the net: are expecting legit input; e-mail addresses are getting checked by millions of websites, mostly through simple regexps. Once these TLD's get added, be ready for lots of these scripts to be broken.
    • Search engines: will be required to find your favorite site on the net; since there isn't a common q

The major difference between bonds and bond traders is that the bonds will eventually mature.

Working...