First New Generic Top Level Domains Opening 198
umdenken points out that the first batch of generic Top Level Domains will go live within the next several days, including .bike, .guru, .clothing, .holdings, .singles, .plumbing, and .ventures. (Early access began Jan. 29th.) ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade says there is currently huge demand for ICANN to reopen their program to let companies run their own gTLD. He said, "Many, many brands and many, many communities didn't know about the GTLD program. I get significant amounts of questions about when can we open the next round, because certainly there is a bit of angst that if Canon [who applied for the .canon gTLD] uses this to do an incredible mass customization campaign to win users to their product, I'm sure the brand next to them will say "Why aren't we doing this?" So I do believe this will snowball. But many will find a .com or whatever they have now will be good enough, and I believe that one excludes the other." He also said the $185,000 price tag to do so is likely to drop.
Just saying... (Score:2, Insightful)
This is a terrible idea for the internet but a great idea for the businesses (eg. custom marketing like the summary mentions) and ICANN (because who wouldn't love large wads of cash!)
Can anyone give a few points on how this is good for the general internet user?
captcha: complete
Re:Just saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
The general internet user gets to be tracked, advertised-to, and generally fucked over as usual. But the address bar will look swag with that .bike in it, yo.
Re:Just saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
Now you can make your domain name look like a USENET discussion forum:
alt.fashion.goth.clothing
comp.languages.cobol.programmer.guru
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Cue scammer in 5, 4, 3...
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Now you can make your domain name look like a USENET discussion forum:
alt.fashion.goth.clothing
comp.languages.cobol.programmer.guru
alt.binaries.sex.pictures.erotica.bestiality.hamster.duct-tape - You can expect our A-1 tapes of sexy colors to take a beating and still provide you the protection required; be sure to catch our ads in the newspaper.
Freaking people have reinvented the wheel.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Freaking people have reinvented the wheel.
No, they just found another way to monetize it...
I look for a browser add-on to appear soon to black list/white list the new TDL's like ABP does for ad domains...
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
It would have been more honest to ban generic terms for TLDs (except the big five), and instead require the new TLDs to be the names or reasonable abbreviations of the controlling registrars. So instead of ".bike", they would have registered... wait they're called Donuts? Seriously? You gave a TLD to a company called Donuts? Sigh. Okay, bad example. But you get my point.
I think there is a lingering cringe against companies (*cough*Microsoft*cough*) having their own private TLD. But, in practice, that's all the new TLD are, TLDs owned by private companies for commercial gain. All the current system does is make it more obscure who controls each TLD, and more difficult for companies to control their brand IP.
It would be more honest, and more useful to the general internet user, if any companies could buy their TLD-name from ICANN for a fixed amount per year. (If they want, ICANN could restrict it to companies that have multiple public-facing services.)
I see no reason why Apple shouldn't have .apple for their services. Microsoft, .microsoft. Google, .google or .goog. ICANN makes say a $million/yr per registrar, users can better see who is whom (I mean, what the fuck is .guru?). Everyone wins.
Re:Just saying... (Score:4, Insightful)
Well, I could think of a few reasons why Apple should not have .apple. One of them being that there's allegedly a fruit by that name that even allegedly has older rights to that name.
But in general, what good would it serve? So FINALLY, after all those years, the internet community learned that their company can be found at "www.company.com". What would we gain by getting ".company" now instead? Aside of having to reteach everyone? There is exactly zero net value to the internet users.
What? Oh, we could be certain that .company is actually $company? We already can if $company gives a shit about its domain name. It's trivial for $company to win the rights to "www.company.com" from the average domain squatter. And if they don't give a fuck, well, then .company won't save you from a scammer either because guess what, they can register that themselves. It's fairly trivial to open up $company in some country the name of which ends in -stan and claim the TLD. If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?
So what exactly do you expect from .company? Personally, I see exactly zero benefit. Well, aside of the benefit for the ICANN because everyone HAS to buy his .company TLD lest some scammer does.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
And i suspect Paul McCartney and the owners of the rights to apple music might disagree :-)
and I suspect they won't.
From APPLE Press Release February 2007 [apple.com]:
newspaper accounts at the time stated that Apple Computer was buying out Apple Corps' trademark rights for a total of $500 million.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Well, I could think of a few reasons why Apple should not have .apple. One of them being that there's allegedly a fruit by that name that even allegedly has older rights to that name.
Corporations are people. Fruits are not. I'm personally against expanding the right of personhood to fruits.
Re:Just saying... (Score:5, Interesting)
It's clear that ICANN wants to create a bunch of privately owned TLD registrars. Good or bad, they have been pushing that barrow for several years now. But the current scheme hides those registrars behind idiotic faux-generic TLDs as if they were the original .com .net .org .edu .gov .mil. I'm just saying that it's more honest if you want to allow companies to buy private TLDs, then use their actual names.
ICANN has this cringe against letting companies use their names as TLDs, but want a bunch of registrars running private TLDs. It's self-contradictory and results in the current stupidity.
If nobody challenges it, who would keep you from doing so?
$185,000 non-refundable application fee plus $1 million per year. Plus whatever additional rules ICANN wants to attach. This isn't intended for the average company. If it went beyond, say, a hundred company TLDs, I'd raise the annual fee until the number drops below that. If it was below 25 coTLDs, I'd reduce the fee until it rises.
Let me put it another way: Why should the island of Tuvalu be allowed to have a TLD, (actually leased to and run out of a ISP in Canada IIRC), but not Google? (Or rather why should a small ISP in Canada have the entirely for-profit .tv TLD, when Google/Apple/Microsoft/Yahoo/ATT/Amazon/etc can't?)
Or for that matter, why should Nauru, population 9000, but not California, population 38 million?
Re:Just saying... (Score:2, Informative)
Because some nuclear power somewhere thinks that those countries should have sovereignty, and no other nuclear power wants to seriously dispute the issue.
Countries are countries because there is a military protecting them. As countries, they have sovereignty. They make their own laws, and so it makes sense to give them a TLD on which their laws apply.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Well, I could think of a few reasons why Apple should not have .apple. One of them being that there's allegedly a fruit by that name that even allegedly has older rights to that name.
You'd think a pane of glass would have the same advantage. Windows shoved that gimme out the watching hole in the wall.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
So you just pointed out WHY we will get .company.
ICANN will have every company out there, buying and squatting on .company, and then a few million speculators and more squatters hoping to mind gold by having .spoon, and .gold, and .shovel -- every single word in the dictionary will have to be bought from iCANN.
Then of course Coke will have to register coke.coke, and IBM ibm.ibm -- just because.
There's ZERO use to the world for this confusion, but when has that stopped anything when profits are on the line? ICANN is a useless agency that has one product.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
ban generic terms for TLDs (except the big five)
Oops. Big six. I forgot .mil.
Nah, can make it 5. (Score:2, Funny)
We could just move .gov to .com.
Re:Just saying... (Score:5, Insightful)
The presence of a custom TLD on a website is an instant indicator for me that the website is almost certainly a flash in the pan marketing project, not being taken very seriously by its owners, and probably not worth my time to click on the link.
Pluses all-round I'd say.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
Money grab. Without enforcement on TLD usage (new and old) they can be meaningless.
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
It is getting to the point where domain names themselves are useless; you basically need a search engine for everything. Maybe we should just switch to IPV6 addresses instead; it will make things easier...
Re:Just saying... (Score:2)
No, it's bad for businesses. It means they have to invest funds in protecting their brand. Just like how the .xxx domain people blanketed television with ads, saying how they'll extort your non-porn business by registering your name under their TLD.
Generic? (Score:5, Insightful)
Nobody knew about GTLD? Perhaps that's because .bike isn't really "generic", is it? And it's pretty Anglo-centric too.
Re:Generic? (Score:2)
I agree with your point about it being Anglo-centric.
Unless of course the Igbo-speaking Nigerians really wanted a ".automotive" TLD, the Japanese wanted ".bicycles" or the Yoruba in Benin wanted ".healthy". :)
Re:Generic? (Score:2)
I agree with your point about it being Anglo-centric.
Did you look at the list? The first one is in Arabic: (Just a redirect.) [www.xn--ngbc5azd], http:/// [http]./ probably won't work on Slashdot, so try http://xn--ggbla1c4e.xn--ngbc5... [xn--ggbla1...--ngbc5azd] instead. .VERSICHERUNG is for the "German speaking insurance industry", .BERLIN is obvious, and there's a few in Russian, Chinese and Japanese.
Re:Generic? (Score:2)
And it's pretty Anglo-centric too.
That one is, but there are many non-English GTLDs, too, including some that are in non-latin character sets. For example, the first one launched is a Japanese phrase, written in Kanji.
Re:Generic? (Score:2)
Re:Generic? (Score:3)
why do we need generic top level domains anyway. (Score:2)
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:5, Interesting)
why do we even have .com or .org or .net on the end.
To identify which registration authority the domain name was created under.
Also... to distinguish domain names from just any other name.
I'll give you an example: "BOOKS"
No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS. If you type BOOKS into your browser address bar; you should not be summarily redirected to whoever happened to get there first ---- logically, you would be presented search results based on relevance.
The authority system allows, there to be a BOOKS.COM under the Commercial registration authority... that might be a book store, Or an accounting vendor....
There can be a BOOKS.ORG, under the non-profit organization reg. authority ---- that might, for example, be a library-related organization.
Then there can be a BOOKS.EDU under the education reg. authority --- that domain might, for example, be an institution of higher learning that specializes in the library sciences or authorship/book writing.
Such domains a .INFO; were added later, and Don't really fit logically in the original DNS system.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2, Insightful)
No one entity should get a monopoly on the name BOOKS.
If all TLDs were random six letter combinations, or local geographic regions, I'd see your point, but with the TLDs we have now, using your logic, ONE books.edu for all institutions of higher learning in the world is about as dumb as one books.
Either make a lot more of them, or get rid of them... doing nothing isn't solving your problem.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:5, Informative)
That's the idea, anyway. In practice .com became such a buzzword everyone wanted one.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
More like if you had anything of the slightest value under a non-".com" domain the equivalent ".com" domain will be registered for ad squatting and/or to get a payout from you. They're not meaningful either, last I checked slashdot for example is not a non-profit, it's owned by a quite regular for-profit holding company so why is is NOT slashdot.com? And I never know what ".net" was supposed to be, I mean I can't even tell without looking up some sort of definition and even that one is vague as fsck "organizations involved in networking technologies, such as Internet service providers and other infrastructure companies." wouldn't 99.9% of these also be a ".com" (or ".org" in case of a municipal non-profit) so it's more like a weak tag?
It never made much sense to me, all the contrived examples on how this would solve namespace collisions are more easily solved by unique domain names. Apple Records? applerecords.com. If they're truly non-competing well then it'd be obvious to anyone that apple.com is not the record label and applerecords.com not the iDevice manufacturer. If Apple Records wanted it badly enough they could buy "apple.com" and Apple could move to "applecomputers.com" or whatever. It's not a problem in links. It's not a problem in written materials. It's not a problem using search engines. It's only a problem if you're trying to guess the right domain name from the company/organization name by yourself. Who really does that? They should just make "foo" and "foo.com" resolve to the same IP, it's already the big pile of "everything else" that doesn't go under a national domain.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
I think that the fact that you had to point out the double slashes shows why replacing the dots with slashes is a bad idea.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:5, Informative)
And while I am at it, the order of the domain should have been reversed. So instead of e.g. tech.slashdot.org.us, It would have been better to go for us.org.slashdot.tech as you then follow the tree. Even neater if there would have been no dots, but slashes instead:
http://us/org/slashdot/tech//d... [us] (Please note the second double slashes to show where the domain ends and the file system begins.
Actually in the 80s that is pretty much how it was.
UUCP mail was routed from one mail server to another to another before finally (hopefully!) landing in a users mail spool on a server they frequently checked more than others. This one done with whats called "bang paths" as they used ! as the separator, and the route was listed left to right ending with a double colon and the username.
Even at the time DNS replaced hosts.txt on the ARPAnet, there were still other connected networks like BITnet and CSnet using different protocols that used mixed forms of routing paths, and neither network required NSF approval to join like the ARPAnet did.
BITnet was IBMs VMS network, and anyone that had a VAX with the RSCS software installed and could afford a leased line was able to get on the network and get data to/from the arpanet.
There was a serious perceived threat from these other protocols, most of which lacked a unified or centrally managed naming lookup scheme (although that is exactly what RSCS was, although only for VAX)
At the time each protocol pretty much only looked out for their own, except for DNS which was advertized as "generic" and "non-proprietary" as only IP was required. DNS was also an open standard like IP and TCP. That was enough for DNS to "win" and become the one true naming system.
I'm not sure why they decided to use a right to left hierarchy beyond just trying to differentiate themselves from existing protocols...
But it doesn't follow the URL/URI standard because that wasn't to be invented for another 10 years or so.
As you say, hindsight is always 20/20
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
As you say, hindsight is always 20/20
Or 20!20.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
You clearly don't have a clue on is going on here. Time to turn in your geek card ( which i suspect is forged anyway ) and get off the net.
People like you only clutter things up for the rest of us.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:4, Informative)
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
It wouldn't be difficult to devise a browser extension that would make the translation from http://www.x.y/zzzzz [www.x.y] to http:y/x/www/zzzzz [y] on the fly and vice-versa.
Then it's just a simple matter of getting the new format to catch on. ;)
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
That would make for a far more unified and consistent system, as then each website owner can put whatever they want in that name, including dots and dashes if they so wish.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
The way I see it, .com is the generic domain. It's not that hard to append it to everything. The only useful other domains are .edu and .gov. The national domains are somewhat useful because they let you know it's a local site, although I don't understand why they need it, really, they should just use .com also.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
In the early day of internet research, they wanted to distinguish between corporations there to make a profit, non-profit organisations, educational groups and the military. So they had ".com" = corporations/companies, ".org" = non-profit organisation, and ".edu" for the educational research groups, ".mil" for the military", and ".net" for the companies that managed the continent wide networks built from fibre-optics and satellite communications.
That gets extended to giving each country it's own domain ".uk" = UK, ".fr" = France, ".de" = Germany. It was a sense of achievement for any country to get their own top-level domain.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
So they had ".com" = corporations/companies, ".org" = non-profit organisation, and ".edu" for the educational research groups, ".mil" for the military", and ".net" for the companies that managed the continent wide networks built from fibre-optics and satellite communications.
.com is derived from the word "commerical" [ietf.org] which includes but is not limited to corporations and companies.
Back in 1985 when .net was created I don't think there was "continent wide networks built from fibre-optics". .net was intended for network technology companies, ISPs (local, national and international) and infrastructure companies. Although, no restrictions were put on it's use so it has become a general purpose name.
Re:why do we need generic top level domains anyway (Score:2)
Politics: (Score:2)
Oh joy. I can just hardly wait for the race to get .obama, .clinton, .christie, .huckabee, etc.
What a wonderful advance for the intarwebs...
(sarcasm warning for the insight impaired)
Re:Politics: (Score:2)
"Oh joy. I can just hardly wait for the race to get .obama, .clinton, .christie, .huckabee, etc."
I think the NJ governor will be saving his money for legal fees
anyway some names )like Christie) are not uncommon
Re:Politics: (Score:2)
"I think the NJ governor will be saving his money for legal fees"
Now, now. It ain't over until the fat lady sings about the fat man.
Re:Politics: (Score:2)
Oh joy. I can just hardly wait for the race to get .obama, .clinton, .christie, .huckabee, etc.
What a wonderful advance for the intarwebs...
(sarcasm warning for the insight impaired)
For some reason my .christie domain seems to be blocked. I guess I should have endorsed him.
$185,000 is Raqueteering (Score:2)
$185,000 is Raqueteering.
Re:$185,000 is Raqueteering (Score:5, Funny)
I knew tennis could be an expensive sport, but I had no idea...
Re: $185,000 is Raqueteering (Score:2)
The whole point of the Internet is to be decentralized, I never got why that didn't extend to the DNS system too. Fuck ICANN
Is it? When was the last time you peered with your neighbors?
Re: $185,000 is Raqueteering (Score:2)
Landrush scams (Score:5, Informative)
Tiny Toons (Score:2)
Just block them (Score:3)
I have as much trust in a random TLD as a site in the .cx TLD; and plan to just block/ignore addresses from them.
Or.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Or.. (Score:2)
If it means and end to every startup having a lame txt speak misspelling name like Flickr then I'm all for it.
i have a better idea (Score:3)
how about we just drop the farse that are TLDs? the only TLDs with any credability are .gov and .edu because those are regulated. all the other TLDs are just one big bag of everything else. nobody wants to get a .net if .com is taken because of the confusion that ensues.
.com.au (Score:2)
Re:i have a better idea (Score:2)
the only TLDs with any credability are .gov and .edu because those are regulated. all the other TLDs are just one big bag of everything else.
.mil seems pretty controlled, too.
Many of the ccTLD's are at least superficially regulated; you have to pay more for registration and maybe even have a representative in the geographic area (which just costs more for administration).
When will that P2P DNS system become reality? (Score:2)
Re:When will that P2P DNS system become reality? (Score:2)
A few years ago a bunch of people from Sweden announced they would create a distributed, non-trackeable DNS system. What happened to that?
The problem of fraudulent servers being introduced becomes significant. An authoritative hierarchical system means there's one and only one place to go to start looking up a new domain: the root servers. Distributed systems have no such authoritative root, so the process of figuring out what the real address is in such a system is complex. Complex enough that nobody has really finished the job, though there are detailed research papers and some fairly good proposals.
In short, people are assholes, and that's why we can't have nice things.
one word (Score:5, Insightful)
Meh (Score:3)
Meh. It's not like most people pay attention to the domains. They just go to their search engine of choice and type-in "Canon" (or whatever they happen to be looking for) and if they can be bothered they look for the most useful result or just click on the first one if they can't.
popcorn at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Welcome to the end of a meaningful domain name system.
Yeah, I know they tried raping it before, but the world largely ignored .biz, .info, .aero and I even forgot what the others were. Or have you seen more than two domains in those TLDs in the recent years?
But brands, that was a gold mine. Advertisers are parasites and they will be happy to convince their marks^H^H^Hcustomers that they really, absolutely must have a fitting TLD now. And since in large corporations (that have the money), the people they talk to are also marketing dudes, it'll work.
It's a huge scam, but it'll rape the usefulness of the DNS hierarchy. Too bad we didn't put everyone within ICANN to the sword while there was still time.
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:3)
there are a fair few .aero domains but you are unlikely to come across them unless you are in the industry (and many .aero owners also have more common TLD's).
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
As you type this, on slashdot.org
The domain name system hasn't really been meaningful in terms of descriptive for a very long time now. The only 'meaning' there was, for a long time, was that if you didn't have a .com domain, you might as well not exist, certainly if you were a business of reasonably large size. Heck, there isn't even a coca-cola.us .
Even now, if you have a domain name that's perfectly descriptive - say you're a business in Zambia - you're going to have more initial success with tompopcorn.com than you would with tompopcorn.co.zm , as people don't recognize '.zm'. See other comments about people ignoring the new TLDs the same way they would ignore a .cx domain (granted, part of that might be experience with some of the shadier sites that tend to choose .cx, .tk, etc.).
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
Even now, if you have a domain name that's perfectly descriptive - say you're a business in Zambia - you're going to have more initial success with tompopcorn.com than you would with tompopcorn.co.zm , as people don't recognize '.zm'. See other comments about people ignoring the new TLDs the same way they would ignore a .cx domain (granted, part of that might be experience with some of the shadier sites that tend to choose .cx, .tk, etc.).
I don't know much about Zambia, but I'm sure Zambians recognise .zm. Only having a CCTLD is no barrier in most countries, or their neighbouring countries, which is what most businesses focus on. Search for .CX websites and there are plenty based on Christmas Island.
If I've forgotten the domain, I often guess .uk (.co.uk, .org.uk) as it's more likely to take me straight to the British website of a multinational, and less likely to take me to an identically-named company elsewhere in the Anglosphere.
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
There are hardly any computers at all on Christmas Island. There are only a couple of thousand people living there, most of whom are prisoners and workers in the detention centre.
It's an interesting place but the domain was nothing but a cash grab for an Australian government owned business selling domains for porn sites at the same time they were running an anti-porn campaign to get rid of anything porn related under ".au".
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
I meant there are plenty relative to the size of the territory. See https://www.google.co.uk/searc... [google.co.uk]
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
As you type this, on slashdot.org
Yes? I run a .org domain myself, which for 10+ years was the TLD you'd pick for any site that was not a company, university or government/military entity.
Sure, these days slashdot is for-profit, but it wasn't always.
The domain name system hasn't really been meaningful in terms of descriptive for a very long time now.
True, but at least it made some sense and wasn't just a total mess of meaningless bullshit.
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
Heck, there isn't even a coca-cola.us
There may not be a site at coca-cola.us, but it does "exist", Coca Cola owns it.
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:3)
Excluding all ccTLDs, the original gTLDs are: .arpa .com .net .org .gov .edu .mil and .int .aero .asia .biz .cat .coop .info .jobs .me .mobi .museum .name .pro .tel and .travel.
The first expansion added:
Then ICANN opened this new gTLD program. The listing of new gTLDs approved are here [icann.org]
I had the idea to use it for pre-blacklisting each and every one in my mail and web filters, but opted instead to go with a whitelisting approach hoping for easier maintenance (Thus the easy copy/pasting of the list at the top - sorry, I don't have link references anymore)
The applicant status [icann.org] page makes for better comedy however, as it lists the existing company name that requested the new top-level instead of the fake company name setup to handle domain registrations. (Currently the english TLDs start at page 4)
Most make sense from the twisted world view of trademark holders, but some are true WTF moments...
Amazon for example requested some obvious ones like .amazon , .buy , and .cloud .bot, .fire , .silk , and .pin
But they also have some strange requests like
Amazon requested a whole 76 TLDs, Google requested 102, Microsoft only 11, and surprisingly Apple only requested .apple
ICANN bitched and moaned about not wanting to create .XXX for like 10 years, but they have already approved and delegated things like .dating , .sexy , and .singles
Also interesting is they already approved and delegated .democrat but have yet to even just approved .gop
Filtering on similarities shows .app has 14 requests, .art .bay .home have 10, and even 5 requests for the .tld tld :P
A whole 6 pages worth of results have objections linked to them, which sounds promising except there are 56 pages total :/
Sadly there is way too much money involved for much success of a massive grass-roots preemptive blocking and agreement to not allow such TLDs to resolve.
But I have no qualms about doing so and only white listing individual and specific domains if any of our customers or vendors go the retarded route of making their primary email or websites use one of these.
I'd give our non-english speaking friends a break, because despite the great technical problems involved at least they have a valid reason wanting a TLD in their native language.
Beyond that however, the rest so far look like money grubbing land grabs, stupid branding, or obvious scamming/spammer havens.
Re:popcorn at 11 (Score:2)
I'm interesting to know exactly how this will "rape" the DNS hierarchy? Why practical disadvantage does it have for end users and people running DNS servers?
.guru (Score:2)
I don't think monks living in caves on himalayan mountains need their own TLD
Its amazing how language evolves
I remeber when guru was short for "Guru Meditation Number"
My list (Score:2)
.slash .dot .www
www.doubleu.dot
Only a decade after irrelevancy (Score:2)
Stupid idea. Money Grab (Score:2)
All this does is confuse matters even further and create a total cluster-F.
There should be a limited number of TLDs, and be 'regulated' like they used to be ( such as no commercial entities on an .org ).
A New Era Begins (Score:2)
Domain Squatters, start your engines.
Many organizations will be caught off guard by this and have their names grabbed under the new TLDs. On the bright side, this will temporarily give us a chance to grab decent names instead of paying a squatter. It also drops the value of their holdings.
Aside from that, looking at the list, I think some of these should have also had abbreviations. .software, .engineer and .attorney look nice, but I would immediately want a shortened version as well.
I Want A TLD Too! (Score:2)
I hereby register
obscurespecializeddomain.dreamedupbymarketingidiots.thatnoonewillevervisit.com
Copyright pending.
Re:I Want A TLD Too! (Score:3)
There is no new TLD in that domain name. It's actually available. Register thatnoonewillevervisit.com and setup the obscurespecializeddomain.dreamedupbymarketingidiots subdomain for it.
just one more (Score:2)
well, that's .stupid
This is just another round of the scam (Score:5, Insightful)
There WAS a time, as I'm sure some folks will remember, that "one entity-one domain" was the rule. That time is long gone, as it drastically restricts registrar profits. Now? It's not uncommon for single entities to control hundreds to hundreds of thousands of domains. I've been researching this issue, and have looked at about 60M domains so far: EASILY 90% of them are crap. They're owned by speculators, typosquatters, "landing page" operators, clickthrough scammers, and on and on and on. I suspect that as I expand my work, that percentage won't change much. In other words: we could delete 90% of the domains out there with no appreciable effect on the Internet.
This latest expansion is merely an attempt to continue the same game -- but with outrageously prices and profits.
Here is my recommendation: learn how to use DNS RPZ. As each one of these TLDs is introduced, add it to the list so that you effectively make it disappear from your view of the Internet. Encourage others to do the same. After all, you aren't required to resolve any domain or group of domains -- so don't. If enough of us do this, we will make these domains essentially worthless. (Why? Because without DNS resolution in place, end users won't be able to reach them with web browsers. MTAs that check for domain existence -- which they should -- will reject all mail to/from them. And so on.)
The Internet doesn't need this junk. YOU don't need this junk. So make it vanish.
Re:This is just another round of the scam (Score:2)
Huh? (Score:2)
Yeah... (Score:2)
Re:About the cost... (Score:5, Interesting)
It will. The business approach is obvious: First you set the price ridiculously high, to extract as much money as possible from those who must have their domain at any cost - businesses with trademarks to protect, mostly. But there are only so many of those, so once sales dry up you gradually lower the price to broaden the market. That way everyone pays exactly as much as they can be made to pay, maximising revenue.
Re:Now then... (Score:2)
Probably some bank. [ing.com]
Re:Now then... (Score:2)
If you think that's bad, take a look at this article [newschoolbeer.com], and especially the picture therein (though the article is funny as well if you ask me). No, that's not photoshopped, that's the actual city limits sign of the town.
The additional sign says "Please! Not so fast!", and is a sign put up at many city limits signs, supposed to convince drivers to slow down, but in this context it's just ... erh... wrong.
Re:For all the USA haters on Slashdot (Score:5, Insightful)
The root of the DNS zone is still handled by the US government. ICANN has a consultative role and suggests modifications, US can still veto any suggestion and can nuke a whole country out of DNS if they so chose.
"Inventing the Internet" gives you the same rights over the international Internet as "inventing the English language" gives over English speakers. If not for the DoD project, the computers of the world would have been connected using a descendant of Minitel, BBSes etc. It would have been completely different at the protocol level and completely similar at it's uses and porn availability.
Re:For all the USA haters on Slashdot (Score:2)
"Inventing the Internet" gives you the same rights over the international Internet as "inventing the English language" gives over English speakers.
I think I lost your point. Are you saying that England has the right to decide if it's spelled "colour" or "color" in the US?
Perhaps you're playing stupid on the Internet, or maybe you're just thick, so I'll spell it out for you.
If the USA wants to spell colour "kulor", England can't stop them.
England "invented" English. USA can do with it what they want.
USA "invented" the Internet. The world can do (or ought to be able to do) with it what it wants.
I believe that is what the +5 Insightful AC above you was getting at.
Re:For all the USA haters on Slashdot (Score:2)
Re:.Plumbing WTF (Score:2)
Re:Can I register .n or .jb? (Score:2)
What about a top level domain .corn? Of course only to be used for things related to agrarian products. ;-)
Re:Can I register .n or .jb? (Score:2)
Re:Teach a man to fish (Score:2)
This. A billion times this.
There will be only ONE group of people who will directly benefit from this. Aside of ICANN of course. Scammers.
Then again, why the tautology...