Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet Censorship Your Rights Online

World Governments Object To New gTLDs 135

Posted by timothy
from the world-governments-acting-as-usual dept.
hypnosec writes "ICANN is receiving more and more requests for new generic top level domains, and governments around the world are busy registering their complaints and objections with the proposed names. To date, more than 200 objections have been raised against proposed gTLDs, with Australia leading the pack with over 120 objections. Some of the other countries which are at the forefront of registering their objections include France, Germany and India. US and UK are near the bottom of the list. ICANN's "early warnings" about national objections to gTLDs serves as formal objections but it doesn't mean that these domains will never be signed off. There is always room for discussions and mediation that would allow prospective registrants to keep on pursuing their claims. Australia has objected to names such as '.baby,' '.app,' and '.beauty' among other. It has also objected to names such as '.sucks' and '.wtf,' stating that these names have 'an overtly negative or critical connotation.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

World Governments Object To New gTLDs

Comments Filter:
  • by GeneralTurgidson (2464452) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:08AM (#42066093)
    Give control of everything to the UN
    • by mwvdlee (775178) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:12AM (#42066129) Homepage

      Indeed.
      Bureaucracy will ensure no new gTLD's will be approved before DNS has been completely replaced and it no longer matters.

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Next you'll be suggesting cooperation rather than competition.

      It doesn't matter that competition leads to the majority ending up losers in ruins - think of the small minority of winners! Reach for that rainbow, man! You might just win a slice too!

      Classical capitalism: throwing ten dogs in a cage knowing that there's only enough food in there for two.

      Modern capitalism: as classical, but making absolutely sure the dogs kill each other rather than turning on you for throwing them in there.

    • by gl4ss (559668) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:29AM (#42066239) Homepage Journal

      well, some conspiracy theorist would say that this new tld sellout and fucking it up so badly as they have was done to move control away from icann.
      it's a nice idea, to have to just use google to get to google's web page, but such a system would need one gatekeeper entity and icann is not up to the task.
      maybe they should have made it a sort of nobel prize to get - build a new data cable from africa to south america and as a prize get a new tld for you. or star a new country. anything else than first going with the idea of asking 185k for a chance to participate in a digital archery contest, then pulling out and not even having the green go light for the whole fucking thing.

      before I was under the assumption that the people who had applied for those tld's had already paid the apply fee, is it so? because I've started to doubt that they couldn't be that stupid? or could they? I mean, if they did then isn't ICANN on the edge of being outright fraudsters?

      • I was opposed to gTLD's at first, but I thought about another existing problem that we have, which gTLD's may fix.

        If you own a trademark, let's say videolan. You figure, ok, let's pick up videolan.org. But oh wait, we need to prevent domain squatters from grabbing up the same names on .net, .us, .com, etc etc etc. Now instead of one domain name to maintain and pay for, you have numerous. Hell, you may have to pick up a domain name for every common TLD out there just to prevent squatters from grabbing it and

        • by mpe (36238) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @02:12PM (#42067753)
          I was opposed to gTLD's at first, but I thought about another existing problem that we have, which gTLD's may fix.
          If you own a trademark, let's say videolan. You figure, ok, let's pick up videolan.org. But oh wait, we need to prevent domain squatters from grabbing up the same names on .net, .us, .com, etc etc etc. Now instead of one domain name to maintain and pay for, you have numerous.


          The thing to remember is that trademarks are NOT intended to be globally unique in the first place. They are specific to both places and types of business.
    • by rtb61 (674572)

      Reality all the UN will do is set a a series of treaties for domain names and to ensure IP addressing is protected and then countries will decide how far they will go with the treaties and which top level domain names they will recognise. Adding a whol bunch of top level domain names is nothing more than a big money grab to sell the same names over and over and over again. Often to the same companies that own the .com or .net names. At one stage they were going to offer the new top level domain names to th

  • by alienzed (732782) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:18AM (#42066157) Homepage
    I guess Australians don't have internet access yet...
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      It is because our government has to much religious influence. Scary thing is this is our less conservative scummy government too. Our conservative government are a pack of loonies.

      Remember this is the same country that only just passed R18+ rating on video games. After religious nutbars tried to block it for ages.

      • by Bremic (2703997)

        The objections come from people with objections based on their religious beliefs. If the current opposition in Australia's Federal Government was in charge they would be wanting to block anything that didn't support the concept of White Male Christian Supremacy. However they still have people who have power, and those people in power are raising the objections.
        Imagine if you will the Tea Party in the US was given complete control over DNS - but without needing to support the concept of Freedom of Speech.

    • Re: (Score:1, Troll)

      by Frosty Piss (770223) *

      So ANYTHING should be allowed?

      How about .iliketofucklittleboysuptheass?

      I mean, if "freedom of speech" trumps all, there should be no limits at all?

      How about .shitonmuhammad?

      I realize that these are extream examples, but what is offensive to one large group is not always offensive to Slashdot types, who are rarely offended at anything.

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I realize that these are extream examples, but what is offensive to one large group is not always offensive to Slashdot types, who are rarely offended at anything.

        As a Slashdot spelling grammar type, I'm offended by the misspelling of "extreme"!

      • by Anonymous Coward

        So ANYTHING should be allowed?

        How about .iliketofucklittleboysuptheass?

        I mean, if "freedom of speech" trumps all, there should be no limits at all?

        If you can't tell the difference between saying something sucks and pedophilia, you're either an idiot or a pedophile who's afraid of "dirty words". Chill the fuck out and stop borrowing nonsense arguments from the likes of Rick Santorum.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Look, it is up to the person who feels offense to speech to remove themselves from it's presence. We should not be restricting free speech just because someone could feel offense.

        Just because you take offense to something, does not mean I should not be able to say it, you can always walk away and not listen.

      • by Runaway1956 (1322357) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @11:23AM (#42066533) Homepage Journal

        I'm offended by your inability to recognize the fact that you're being offensive to those of us who are not easily offended.

      • So ANYTHING should be allowed?

        Yes

      • As if an intelligent person needs protection from being offended. Ever.
      • by neokushan (932374)

        So how is that any different to someone buying iliketofucklittleboysuptheass.com?

  • australia.wtf (Score:5, Interesting)

    by MakerDusk (2712435) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:19AM (#42066167)
    I don't see why there are even objections. Why do governments even have a right to determine what gTLD's are offensive? We're talking about privately owned names and the government should have no hand in that. It should be something between the applicant and their user base alone. For any government that thinks they have the right to control the names that people choose on internet: censorship.sucks
    • by Anonymous Coward

      Have they reserved .dingo ?

    • In this case I (being Australian) believe that it is more the church influence (morality and all that jazz) on senator Conroy (communications minister). He has been very supportive of content filtering and the content producers crazy plans to halt piracy. Occasionally he does good things, but I think his strong religious links (I mean that more in terms of people than faith I guess) unfortunately have a lot of his ear on these matters.
    • by Dabido (802599)
      I think the governments of the world are seeing it in a similar way to how they can veto company names which they consider inappropriate. (This comment in no way means I either agree or disagree with them).
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:19AM (#42066169)

    I fail to see how that is supposed to be a reason for not allowing a TLD. Critique and satire are important cornerstones of individual and free expression, of - yes - critical discourse and public debate. Yes, not everything on the internet smells like roses and tastes like sugar. But meaningful exchange has never been without thornes and sometimes words have to be nasty to get through.

    It is shamefull for a democratic government to be acting in such a way. A democracy hears its citizens, accepts critique and initiate change whereever reasonable. Censoring speech because you're afraid of people not praising you all the way - that's the way of tyrannies.

    • by fyngyrz (762201)

      It is shamefull for a democratic government to be acting in such a way. A democracy hears its citizens, accepts critique and initiate change whereever reasonable.

      Where do you live? I live in the USA, which was instantiated with the intent of creating a constitutional republic, but which has mutated into a corporate oligarchy, primarily via legislative and judicial action. We can have no such expectations here, not if we're paying attention, anyway.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Is it really censorship to keep a semblance of order? To me a TLD doesn't seem like speech, but rather a protocol. Personally, I think by turning TLDs into speech we are opening a can of worms. But that ship may have sailed out the barn door long ago. Probably down the series of .tubes

    • by mrmeval (662166)

      I will call many of those countries DINOs aka Democracies In Name Only since most people seem to equate "Democracy" to a government based on modern "Republicanism" which in not a Republic per se but something unique to the some movements in Europe and was a strong driver of the American revolutionaries.
      DINOs do not honor immutable individual rights but do feebly proclaim human civil rights which varies with the governments whim.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republicanism [wikipedia.org]

      • Why do you think that a 'true' democracy is inherently going to "honor immutable individual rights" anyway? Democracy is tyranny of the majority, and the prop 8 debacle in California demonstrated exactly what happens when majorities (democracies) decide what rights minorities have. Which is to say whatever the majority wants.

        Basically no matter what kind of government you have, somebody is deciding what is right for somebody else, and government provides the theater by which force is used to make that de
        • by mrmeval (662166)

          I wasn't. True democracy is mob rule. It has the intelligence and morality of a mob. We've been sliding towards that in the US but I don't think we can or will get there as it's untenable. I expect the US will become a defacto oligarchy of some kind.

          To you what is the US now?

           

    • by westlake (615356)

      I fail to see how that is supposed to be a reason for not allowing a TLD. Critique and satire are important cornerstones of individual and free expression
      It is shamefull for a democratic government to be acting in such a way. A democracy hears its citizens, accepts critique and initiate change wherever reasonable. Censoring speech because you're afraid of people not praising you all the way - that's the way of tyrannies.

      The global top level domain is a single word, a subject head. To call it "speech" is quite a stretch.

      There is no global democracy, No universal definition of free speech.

      No easy way to craft one without sounding either provincial or imperialist if you try. History. Culture. Legal traditions. All get in the way.

      There is, I think, something to said for humility, maturity and common sense when dealing with other cultures. You don't have to go miles out of your way to be offensive. To make trouble.

      ".sucks" is

  • by Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:21AM (#42066185) Journal

    Brazil is objecting to .amazon being taken by amazon.com.

    Let's hope Microsoft can't claim windows.com. 1. It was arrogant for them to name their custom windowing system that, and 2. The product is now more accurately described as .primaryColorTiles.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:23AM (#42066197)

    My first reaction was 'why would they complain about baby?' But I went and read the complaint. I guess I totally misunderstood the purpose of these gTLDs. I naively assumed they were just new extensions that everyone could use if they wanted. However the complaint about .baby was that Johnson and Johnson was reserving it for themselves. Well DUH!! of course you can't do that.

    I worry about the lack of common sense in the business world.

    • by Russ1642 (1087959) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:30AM (#42066247)
      So Baby.com is ok, but Johnson.baby isn't? Once every company grabs up a gTLD it'll be the same as what it used to be. Instead of 'ABCD.com' it'll be 'XYZ.ABCD'. Big deal.
      • by Anonymous Coward

        I think AC is saying Johnson and Johnson wanted ALL addresses under the .baby gTLD. Agreed, this would be patently ridiculous (which is to say it would be as ridiculous as the current patent system).

  • by pittaxx (2003818) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:23AM (#42066199)
    No one respects the conventions at this point anyway and I don't see much point in using them any more. Big companies just register everything available anyway, and small ones has to deal with trolling an scamming. It's just an extra vector for profit to some people, the way I see it. I'd say just drop the requirement for TLDs and let the people use current ones if they want to.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:24AM (#42066201)

    Just stick to country codes ONLY for top level names and let each country do what they want.
    Of course that would mean the end to .com, .net and .org, but doing anything else just creates a mess.

    But I don't see that happening, too much money to be made.

    • by unixisc (2429386)

      Just stick to country codes ONLY for top level names and let each country do what they want. Of course that would mean the end to .com, .net and .org, but doing anything else just creates a mess.

      But I don't see that happening, too much money to be made.

      This!

      What was wrong w/ what we had? Make it country codes only, and retire .com, .org, .mil and .edu i.e. put them behind their national domains, be it .us, .ca, .eu,, .uk, .ru or whatever.

      Roll it back.

      • Yeah, it's just that simple, of course there are no name clashes at all....
        • by unixisc (2429386)
          That way, each country can run its own registry. Organizations that call themselves 'international' can use TLDs like .un, .eu, .oas, .au, etc.
    • by Twinbee (767046)
      Maybe it's too late now, but I would otherwise say get rid of the extension altogether, along with http etc.

      Actually, maybe just have www. at the beginning to show it is a web address.
  • by MistrX (1566617) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:25AM (#42066211)

    'An overtly negative or critical connotation.'

    Yeah imagine people being critical.
    Even worse: People being critical with a frown on their face!

    • 'An overtly negative or critical connotation.'

      Yeah imagine people being critical. Even worse: People being critical with a frown on their face!

      Just wait until they hear about ".gov" and ".mil" ... overtly negative or critical connotation indeed.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Along with .scam, .lame, .sawthisbefore, and .nsfw. Those would make our sysadmins lives a lot easier.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Right. Because all the spammers and fraudsters in the whole world will voluntarily move to a TLD that would allow them to be easily ignored.

      Are you actually retarded, or incredibly ignorant?

  • by rossdee (243626) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:28AM (#42066233)

    How many "World Governments" are there? I only know of one (Yhe UN) and not all of the National Governments take any heed to what they say.

    If there was more than one World Government wouldn't they be arguing/fighting with each other?
    (like during the cold war, the First World (Capitalist western Democracies) were nearly at war with the Second World (Communist Countries), and some of the fighting was in third world countries...

  • by Anonymous Coward

    The police in the Netherlands want to register the TLD .politie
    (the Dutch word for police)
    I think it is a ridiculous waste of public money.
    And what if the word politie exists in other languages as well?
    Of course they already hold politie.nl
    And that should be it.

  • by srussia (884021) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @10:36AM (#42066271)
    "All these words are yours except .europa."
  • >It has also objected to names such as '.sucks' and '.wtf,' stating that these names have 'an overtly negative or critical connotation.'"

    We wouldn't want to have any criticism on the Internet, would we?

  • I guess this is a case of the biggest guys slugging out for who has rights. Ouch, could be some collateral damage to bystanders! THERE IS ONLY ONE ARMY AND IT IS OUR ARMY!!!! COME AND HAVE A GO IF YOU DON'T AGREE! ooh could be nasty....

    (actually to be fair probably the US are just arguing .army shouldn't be there as it's just too much trouble sorting out everybody wanting their army to have it...)

    Feel a bit sorry for the folks in South America mind, 20 years time and maybe the amazon shipping company wil

    • by rubycodez (864176)

      The U.S. Department of Defense already has .mil

      perks come with inventing the interernet, and have the Two Words: nuclear fucking weapons

  • by denis-The-menace (471988) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @11:10AM (#42066435)

    /. should have a poll about this.

    • by toejam13 (958243)

      I expect that scammers and other unscrupulous vendors will be the first one to use them.

      I actually wanted to see more accountability in domain names, not less. The entire meaning of .com, .org, .net and .edu has been blurred because anyone could register any name. The new TLDs will just make the problem worse.

      But hey, a small number of people are going to make a LOT of money from this. So that makes this a good idea, right?

  • Given how megaupload's raid was partially justified in it having an American TLD all these .baby domans seems like a move to extend US net jurisdiction.

  • I'm trying to figure out why the Australian government would find .app offensive. Other than pure commercial greed, I mean. I wonder if someone is trying to get .blackfriday
    • by jonwil (467024)

      .app is not offensive to Australians, they are objecting to it because "app" is a generic term and no one entity should have the ability to control its use.

  • by WaffleMonster (969671) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @12:46PM (#42067115)

    I can't think of anything more outrageous and distructive to the DNS system than allowing a bunch of useless new TLDs which only serve to enrich ICANN, phishers and name protection rackets.

    I guess I should be appalled and dismayed when you develop a structure on the Internet which explicitly allows governments to weigh in on decisions and it quickly devolves into childish nonsense... Nobody could have possibly predicted this??? ..give me a fucking break.

    Giving governments a taste of say/power over the happenings of the net is bad policy it only encourages governments to seek more power which only results in bad outcomes.

    It might seem silly but those extra layers in the ISO model are getting to be more and more important to the design of protocols and operation of the network. Being sloppy, greedy and a total sellout (ICANN) instead of clever and concerned about the freedom and well-being of users is a recipe for disaster.

  • by SmallFurryCreature (593017) on Thursday November 22, 2012 @01:37PM (#42067505) Journal

    If Slashdot editors weren't just after cheap headlines they might have picked up on this:

    Domain: Capitol

    Australian objection: The useofgeographicnamesat the secondlevel:Thestring(.capital) is a generic geographicterm,and DeltaMillLLCdoesnotappeartohaveproposedsufficientmechanismstoallowcommunitiesto protecttheirnamesandreputationsfrommisuseatthesecondlevel.

    So it seems that Australia is actually trying to prevent what many here fear, that there will be a ton of meaningless top domains which will force people either to register their sub domain to protect their brand/identity or have it exploited by someone else.

    As for the giggles about .sucks wanna bet the company behind that isn't about protesting or free speech but "you want to prevent [your name here].sucks from appearing in search result, why not register it yourself, that will be 1000 dollars please. A tiny amount to the internationals, costs of doing business but feed a leech and it will only suck more.

    I am with Australia on this and I think they should use their power to block ALL requests. Get the whole idea shutdown. Someone in government in Australia seems to be awake and the rest of world is asleep at the wheel as usual or to interested in just their own tiny section to see the big picture.

  • It'd be great if we could get them to object to and block every single new topical TLD.

  • I guess my application for .sheila may go through?
  • please Stop this tld crap, before it runs out of control!

  • The domain names are (for now) pretty close to a common international digital vocabolary. Modern browser location bars mix domains and search terms when you type.

    How did they come up with the idea that specific words could be bought by anybody?

    I'm not saying the current domain structure is perfect, but releasing gTLDs will seriously destroy it.

  • If you go to the list at https://gacweb.icann.org/display/gacweb/GAC+Early+Warnings [icann.org] , you'll see a jumbled hodgepodge of requested TLDs, impossible to find anything (except exact matches with Find-within-page). I immediately wished that the list were sortable.

    Turns out, it is. The column headers are hotlinks that trigger sorts on the associated column. It's just not at all obvious that that's the case, because they've suppressed almost all standard hotlink cues. The hotlinks are bold, black and centered,

"Bureaucracy is the enemy of innovation." -- Mark Shepherd, former President and CEO of Texas Instruments

Working...