Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet IT

ICANN Board Approves Wide Expansion of TLDs 490

Posted by timothy from the dibs-on-dot-tim dept.
penciling_in writes "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has approved the relaxation of the rules for the introduction of new Top-Level Domains — a move that could drastically change the Internet. 'We are opening up a new world and I think this cannot be underestimated,' said Roberto Gaetano, an ICANN board member. The future outcome of this decision was discussed on Slashdot a few days ago. It also seems, based on this post on CircleID from last month, that ICANN was already in preparation mode of mass TLD introductions. The new decision will allow companies to register their brands as generic top-level domain names (TLDs). For instance, Microsoft could apply to have a TLD such as '.msn', Apple apply for '.mac', and Google for '.goog'... The decision was taken unanimously on Thursday, June 26, 2008 at the 32nd ICANN Meeting in Paris."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Board Approves Wide Expansion of TLDs More

ICANN Board Approves Wide Expansion of TLDs

Comments Filter:

  • There will be some good from this. (Score:5, Funny)

    by Gewalt ( 1200451 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:25PM (#23953005)
    We are long overdue for a .sucks domain. It will be nice to finally have it.

  • first.post (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:25PM (#23953013)

    fuck.icann

  • The end of ctrl+enter days? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by pwnies ( 1034518 ) * <j@jjcm.org> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:25PM (#23953019) Homepage Journal
    I sincerely hope that this doesn't become too commonplace, and that .com, .net, and .org don't just get thrown out the window. Call me lazy, but I love being able to ctrl+enter, shift+enter, and ctrl+shift+enter to auto-complete .com/.net/.org respectively. Typing "www.search.google" is just more tedious than typing, "google [ctrl][enter]"

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by pitchpipe ( 708843 )
      Ya. And this'll just piss off your wife (yes I know I'm on Slashdot) when she types in goo.. and up pops www.google.boobs

    • Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Gewalt ( 1200451 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:32PM (#23953189)
      Take a lesson from the idiots. Many times I have seen /.r's mocking end users for using the search feature on their homepage to get to another website, instead of using the address bar. I don't find that feature idiotic at all, and I use that behavior myself. The more and more TLDs we get, the more convenient this "feature" of a modern homepage becomes. And don't moan about have to use the mouse to click the first entry, most users would have had to use the mouse to even put the cursor in the address bar anyways, not to mention click the mouse a predetermined number of times between 1 and 3 just to be able to start tying a random URL.

      • Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Solandri ( 704621 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @03:17PM (#23955901)

        Take a lesson from the idiots. Many times I have seen /.r's mocking end users for using the search feature on their homepage to get to another website, instead of using the address bar. I don't find that feature idiotic at all, and I use that behavior myself.
        When I need to go to a new site for a financial transaction (e.g. opening a new bank account), I always get there via a Google search instead of typing it directly. If I enter the address directly and make a subtle typo, I could end up at some scammer's site made to look like the real thing so they can steal my personal info. If I go through Google and make a typo, Google usually suggests the correct name. Even when it doesn't, I can usually tell by the search results that I've made a typo.

    • Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by BungaDunga ( 801391 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:53PM (#23953793)
      Couldn't there be www.google? ie, domain "www" TLD "google".

    • Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alphaseven ( 540122 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:55PM (#23953849)

      I sincerely hope that this doesn't become too commonplace, and that .com, .net, and .org don't just get thrown out the window. Call me lazy, but I love being able to ctrl+enter, shift+enter, and ctrl+shift+enter to auto-complete .com/.net/.org respectively. Typing "www.search.google" is just more tedious than typing, "google [ctrl][enter]"
      There are already quite a few popular sites that use "unusual" TLDs like last.fm, del.icio.us and blip.tv and it never struck me as a problem.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by TubeSteak ( 669689 )

        There are already quite a few popular sites that use "unusual" TLDs like last.fm, del.icio.us and blip.tv and it never struck me as a problem.
        .fm, .us, and .tv are the TLDs of Countries.
        Federated States of Micronesia, United States, and Tuvalu respectively
         
        They are not vanity TLDS.
        And more importantly, there is an inherent limit to the number that can be created.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by pbhj ( 607776 )

        [...] a few popular sites that use "unusual" TLDs like last.fm, del.icio.us and blip.tv and it never struck me as a problem.

        Those aren't unusual TLDs they're entirely generic and fit in the system of geographic TLDs.

        Basically they are going to screw up the system to allow anything that makes more money for the ICANN executives. No?

        There's still hope I think. If the major search engines chose to give a negative weighting to these new TLDs then ICANN wouldn't be able to screw quite so much out of the entire globes businesses - businesses can't afford to not control the website at theirdomain.tld, especially if there's a chance it

    • Re:The end of ctrl+enter days? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by ady1 ( 873490 ) * on Thursday June 26, 2008 @02:11PM (#23954245)

      Typing just "google" would do. You don't need to type anything else (having www prefix was such a stupid idea to begin with).

      I for one look forward to this as this is how dns is suppose to work. Anyone who doesn't like it doesn't understand how dns works.

    • Phishing (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Hatta ( 162192 )

      Wait until someone registers the .con TLD. http://www.mybank.con/ [mybank.con]

  • Interesting reversal (Score:5, Interesting)

    by damn_registrars ( 1103043 ) <damn.registrars@gmail.com> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:27PM (#23953057) Homepage Journal
    It wasn't that long ago that ICANN voted against allowing the much-requested .xxx domain. Now they want to open up to allow custom TLDs?

    As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary hodge-podge already.
    • Though the idea was to try to force all x-rated material to be on a .xxx wasn't it? Which would have been impractical for myriad reasons.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by Zeinfeld ( 263942 )
      The difference is that the supporters of .xxx could only get what they wanted if the rest of the net became a porn-free zone. So it was about censorship and control.

      What I don't understand is why the author thought that Microsoft would want .msn and Google would want .goog. Microsoft and Google might take those domains to stop squatters but the brands they would want to promote are .microsoft and .google.

      I wonder what the governance model for the root zones is going to be. At the moment these are mainta

      • This is stupid - here is the solution:* (Score:5, Interesting)

        by I Want to be Anonymo ( 1312257 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:57PM (#23953909)

        A meeting of the minds between Google, Yahoo, and Microsoft resulting in an agreement to not index these idiotic domains could kill this quick before it gets out of hand.

        *Will it happen - doubtful.
          Can you or I do anything about it - probably not.
          But I can dream.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Bogtha ( 906264 )

        The difference is that the supporters of .xxx could only get what they wanted if the rest of the net became a porn-free zone.

        I supported the xxx TLD and you aren't describing what I wanted at all. Just because some people wanted all porn to go in its own TLD, it doesn't mean people shouldn't be able to choose an xxx domain voluntarily.

        So it was about censorship and control.

        That much is right. You can't have an xxx domain even if you want to. That's censorship and control all right.

    • I kind of supported their decision NOT to issue a .xxx TLD. But mostly because I believe it SHOULD be issued at the country name level.

      Example:
      sitename.xxx.uk
      or
      sitename.xxx.seattle.wa.us

      Now they've gone in the opposite direction, but they're still as stupid as they were back when they made that first decision.

    • Re:Interesting reversal (Score:5, Funny)

      by pitchpipe ( 708843 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:36PM (#23953335)
      I say make 'em type in the ip address. That'll get rid of that hodge-podge lickety split. Now get off my lawn!

    • "As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary" (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Animaether ( 411575 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:50PM (#23953713) Journal

      "As if the internet didn't have enough arbitrary hodge-podge already."

      It does - just look at Slashdot. It's hardly an 'organization' (.org), especially now that it's owned by a commercial entity (.com). Heck, it started out as somebody's personal little site.. happened to be an american (.us).

      Tons more examples of current sites being on domains that they 'shouldn`t' be in, and also a lot of examples of where that is the case simply because sites change over time.

      So if all of it is pretty much arbitrary anyway, then why not do away with it?

      Heck, some people already have... *entirely*

      For example: http://bi/ [bi]
      ( disregard any re-direction by browser to www.bi.com ; open a shell, go ping 'bi'. If you're on windows, go ping 'bi.' or it will look for a local host)

      I understand the many technical, psychological, financial, etc. reasons against this. But in terms of organization - we don't have any anyway.

  • Comment removed (Score:5, Funny)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:28PM (#23953089)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  • Those're gonna be some fun router tables (Score:5, Funny)

    by wiredog ( 43288 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:29PM (#23953095) Journal

    I, personally, intend to try for the ".nsfw" domain.

  • So wait.... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by porcupine8 ( 816071 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:30PM (#23953129) Journal
    Let's say Apple registers .apple or .ipod. Do they automatically get ALL of the possible domains within that TLD? If not, who controls the TLD? If .apple is a TLD, can I go to GoDaddy and register porcupine.apple? If they do control it, do they have to pay to register domains within their own TLD? Or does this deal come with free unlimited domains?

    • Re:So wait.... (Score:5, Informative)

      by Gewalt ( 1200451 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:34PM (#23953243)
      If they register the TLD then they will become the registrar. If you want to get a domain on that TLD then you will have to go through them.

      • Re:So wait.... (Score:5, Informative)

        by gclef ( 96311 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:48PM (#23953659)

        Close. They will become the registRY. The registRAR must be one of the ICANN-approved ones (you can't require a non-ICANN registrar). It isn't clear from what I've read whether you can refuse to work with any registrar and make it a closed TLD. I would assume you can, though.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by pjeremyh ( 903859 )
        So for example the .cola domain, if pepsi gets it and registers .cola and pepsi.cola first then the only way we'll see coca.cola is if pepsi let them?

  • Clownpenis.fart (Score:4, Funny)

    by the_tsi ( 19767 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:34PM (#23953241)

    No longer the last domain available.

  • Abuse of TLDs (Score:5, Interesting)

    by JoeCommodore ( 567479 ) <larry@portcommodore.com> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:34PM (#23953247) Homepage

    I hope they have good oversight...

    Imagine the chaos of tlds with: .exe .dll .prg .php .c0m (or other foreign symbol for o .txt .pdf .conf .doc .txt .xls .ppt .jpg .gif .tif .mp3 .mpg .htm(l) .png ...then again slashdot could have a slashdot.slashdot domain.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by apathy maybe ( 922212 )

      I've seen this sort of comment in other places as well. It is a very important one.

      I remember when I was younger and stupid that I thought that .com on websites was the same as .com at the end of some MS DOS programs. Actually I never was stupid enough to think that they meant the same thing, but the fact is that I was damn confused until I learnt that one meant commercial and the other command.

      So yeah, this is a stupid idea, and I predict many many further opportunities for nasty people to exploit this to

    • Re:Abuse of TLDs (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Amouth ( 879122 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:54PM (#23953819)

      persontal i want to try and get .local

      just so i can fuck with all the small biz NT/AD domain installs out there that doen't use a fully qualified name

      as soon as .local is resolvable soooo many people are going to have a bad day

  • Why not just languages? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by fintler ( 140604 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:34PM (#23953251)

    I'd be happy with a TLD system based on language. Why do we need the com/net/org thing anyway. Lets just have something like

    http://google.en/ [google.en]
    http://google.it/ [google.it]
    http://.name.language/ [.name.language]

  • Woohoo (Score:5, Funny)

    by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:35PM (#23953275)

    A flat DNS. Just the way it was always meant to be.

     

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Workaphobia ( 931620 )

      Dead on commentary. I suppose we all should have seen this coming. Why is it that some people can't grasp the beauty of a tree structure?

  • Possibly the stupidest idea ever (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lusiphur69 ( 455824 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:36PM (#23953337) Homepage

    Hmmm..let's open up the TLD's so that DNS servers will become overcrowded with useless DNS information that will quickly go out of date and throw the usability and simplicity of the current schema right out the window.

    Additionally, of course, common folk will have more trouble getting a domain name for that personal website/application because the fees are going to increase exponetially.

    Cash-in for ICANN - and end users lose.

  • God help us (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nurb432 ( 527695 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:39PM (#23953417) Homepage Journal

    This will only cause more confusion, especially to the average person.

    But they get more $ out of the extra registrations, so we know why it *really* happened.

  • So if McDonald's wanted a TLD... (Score:5, Funny)

    by oodaloop ( 1229816 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:39PM (#23953419)
    ...then ICANN has .chzbrgr?

    I'm sorry, I'll show myself out now.

  • I can think of many companies (Score:5, Funny)

    by LM741N ( 258038 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:40PM (#23953435)

    that should be restricted to the .con domain.

  • Oh no... (Score:5, Informative)

    by drspliff ( 652992 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:41PM (#23953469)

    From a technical point of view I see this as a failure. It's putting more weight on on the root name servers, how long until there are 10,000 TLDs, 100,000 of them? a million? Then there's all the people running the TLDs who may or may not have the infrastructure, technical expertise or long-term stability to properly run one.

    "free market" != stable, there will be thousands of different ways to register sub-domains, some where registrations will not be allowed, some which cost excessive amounts of money and eventually whole TLDs setup to Google-bomb.

    Sure it means people will be able to type in "apple", but what gives one specific company the right over a global use of that trademark name? What about "apple" print design services, "apple" car mechanics all of whom have their own trademarks in that industry.

    I'm just an idealist, and would much prefer ".uk.org.mycompany.www" style domains (remember, thats how it was supposed to work in the beginning but somebody fucked up), but all I can see happening from opening up TLDs is annoyance and instability.

    I'm not even going to comment on ICANN doing this for the money, capitalist pigs.

    • Re:Oh no... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by AnyoneEB ( 574727 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @02:00PM (#23953975) Homepage

      This article [templetons.com], which I believe I found off a comment from the previous /. article on this topic, discusses a sane way to handle a TLD free-for-all, which actually sounds like it could be better than the current system. Of course, ICANN will likely opt for the profitable way not the sane way if the general consensus on /. about ICANN's greed is at all accurate.

      Yeah, domains in the other order like on usenet would make more sense, but it is quite a few years too late for that.

  • So what! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Wowsers ( 1151731 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:42PM (#23953495) Journal

    I have .com's .net's and two different country's domains. I have no interest to waste more money on domains just because they changed the end suffix. It will all end up as a fiasco for popular suffix's like .tv (overpriced). No doubt .sex will still not be allowed. Will ICANN allow every registrar to register any .suffix or will that be restricted as well?

  • I like the idea, frankly (Score:5, Funny)

    by Luyseyal ( 3154 ) <swaters&luy,info> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:44PM (#23953537) Homepage

    I don't care if it makes the Internet work like AOL keywords. I don't care if Google, Yahoo!, et al. have to spider inf() more TLDs. I don't care if idiot corporations think they have to buy every version of .m1kr0s0ft and .msf7 out there "just in case". If we can finally get .fuck and .suck, .lol and .is.gay the Internet will finally release its full scientific potential.

    More porn.
    -l

    P.s., Karl Auerbach did experiments showing even BIND could handle umpteen million TLDs.

  • in many ways, this is good (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eobanb ( 823187 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:49PM (#23953669) Homepage
    If you read TFA you'll see that the TLDs will cost upwards of $100,000 and are subject to ICANN approval. That cost and/or approval might be a one time thing, or it might turn out to be annual. Yes, there will be a few idiotic TLDs, but this is probably how it should've been from the beginning. I work for a university IT department and we regularly get calls from users trying to access university sites (most of which use the .edu TLD of course), except that they are trying to use .com instead. Some universities have registered .com domains to redirect to the real site to try and accommodate these people. Our department refuses to do this, and I'm glad. Many people still have the mindset that website == ends in .com and it reinforces that notion. Arbitrary TLDs will slowly change the mindset from thinking that a URL is anything.usually-com to anything.anything. This is probably how DNS should have been from the beginning.

  • Great idea. Terrible implementation. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by ivan256 ( 17499 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:55PM (#23953857)

    Instead of letting people own/register a TLD, they should have just let people register domains in *any* TLD.

  • Hello www.m.i.c.r.o.s.o.f.t, www.m.i.c.r.o.s.o.ft, (Score:3, Insightful)

    by mkcmkc ( 197982 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:55PM (#23953863)

    Frankly, I fail to see how this is an improvement, as opposed to (say) yanking Network Solutions' monopoly...

  • Back to the future (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Todd Knarr ( 15451 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @01:55PM (#23953875) Homepage

    And so it comes full circle. The ancient flat hosts file that the ARPAnet used way back in it's early days, the one that was abandoned in favor of hierarchical DNS because it wasn't possible to manage a flat namespace when the net was a few thousand machines, returns. What, you think the companies that insist on registering every variation of their name in every domain in existence won't insist on having their own TLD too? And we'll be back to hostnames being of the form "ford". And "fordfocus". And "focus". And "myfocus". And "myford". All belonging to Ford Motors. And the inevitable fights when Focus Magazine (a fine-art photography magazine) also wants "focus" and has the trademark to justify getting it just as much as Ford.

    Siiiiiigh...

  • Won't this eventually end up like usenet? (Score:5, Funny)

    by oldspewey ( 1303305 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @02:06PM (#23954143)
    You know, with all kinds of domain names like:

    alt.binaries.go.pound.sand.up.your.ass
    comp.sys.obscure.programming.language.that.only.six.remaining.bearded.men.even.remember
    can.forsale.illegal.bootleg.dvds.buffy.vampire.slayer

  • The rich take all? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Excelcia ( 906188 ) <slashdot@excelcia.ca> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @02:16PM (#23954351) Homepage Journal
    The problem I have is with the dispute resolution system. According to Paul Twomey of ICANN (as quoted by the BBC [slashdot.org]), "[i]f there is a dispute, we will try and get the parties together to work it out. But if that fails there will be an auction and the domain will go to the highest bidder."

    So, I pick a name, and McDeepPockets comes along and thinks, hey, that's a great idea - I'll just take that, thank-you. They "dispute" it, and ICANN's response is... well, if you really can't settle your differences, high bidder gets it. Wow... that's going to make for a pretty mercenary internet.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Eil ( 82413 )

      So, I pick a name, and McDeepPockets comes along and thinks, hey, that's a great idea - I'll just take that, thank-you. They "dispute" it, and ICANN's response is... well, if you really can't settle your differences, high bidder gets it. Wow... that's going to make for a pretty mercenary internet.

      You say this as if it were a new policy of some kind... ICANN has always operated this way.

  • Problems (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Pig Hogger ( 10379 ) <pig DOT hogger AT gmail DOT com> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @02:19PM (#23954445) Journal
    Ther will be some problems... If you look in the release [icann.org],

    4. How will offensive names be prevented?

    Offensive names will be subject to an objection-based process based on public morality and order. This process will be conducted by an international arbitration body utilizing criteria drawing on provisions in a number of international treaties. ICANN will not be the decision maker on these objections.

    This will obviously not work.

    One innocent word in a language can be an offensive word in another. For exemple, the french word for "seal [wikipedia.org]" is phoque, which is pronounced exactly like you think it is.

    And even in the same language, various countries will give totally different meanings to a given word. Think of "lift" -vs- "elevator", "boot" -vs- "trunk" or "crisps" -vs- "chips"...

    And it can be even worse; for example, in France, gosses means "children", whereas in Québec, it means "testicles".

  • COM is already 'level 0' (Score:4, Insightful)

    by argent ( 18001 ) <peter@NOsPAm.slashdot.2006.taronga.com> on Thursday June 26, 2008 @03:56PM (#23956865) Homepage Journal

    Hey, I was all about opening up the TLDs back in the '80s, I worked on getting one of the first open TLDs (.dot) running under The Internet Namespace Cooperative (TINC). But it doesn't matter any more.

    Because "COM" is "the" top level. Who the hell cares about "name" or "per" or the rest of the "we are not COM, but..." domains? It's too late, it's a done deal, "COM" is the top level, everything else is parochial.

    So don't fight over who's going to be ".sex", people will still pay more for "sex.com", and when you say your email address is "you@yourname" you better make sure that "you@yourname.com" works as well.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by otmar ( 32000 )

      This a quite US-centric view.

      In most other countries, the local ccTLD is the default where people look for company websites.

  • this will clash with local domains (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Khopesh ( 112447 ) on Thursday June 26, 2008 @06:06PM (#23959149) Homepage Journal
    Yes, I know .localdomain won't be available, but what about users and systems within local networks that tend to function on alternate (internal-only) and implied (non-canonicalized) domains?

    Let's say I have a partitioned office network at the company Foo Powers.  My workstation is khopesh.office.foopowers.com (which is NAT'ed).  From another system within the office, I'd probably just run   ssh khopesh   to get there (which implies khopesh.office.foopowers.com).  To log into the web server (which lives in the DMZ), I'd run   ssh www.dmz   and to get back to my system,   ssh khopesh.office   would do the trick. ... Under an infinite number of TLDs, this isn't reliable.

    There are cool SSH tricks you can do to traverse NATs; I have it rigged so that from home, I can run   ssh khopesh.office   and get in.  This triggers an entry in my ~/.ssh/config that looks like this (the first entry fits the above example.  the second entry allows me to define an arbitrary extension to trigger a proxy rule and then remove the extension inside the proxy):

    Host *.office
      ProxyCommand ssh proxy.office.foopowers.com nc -w 1 %h %p
    Host *.foo
      ProxyCommand ssh proxy.office.foopowers.com nc -w 1 $(echo %h|sed s/\.foo$//) %p

    While a real .office or .foo TLD wouldn't stop this from working, I'd prefer a lookup failure to a key mis-match when trying such a command from a machine lacking the above config.

Slashdot Top Deals

If all else fails, lower your standards.

Close