Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
The Internet Communications

.tel Coming Soon 201

Posted by CowboyNeal from the dot-dot-dot dept.
GeorgeK writes "ICANN hasn't posted it on their website yet, but according to one of their board members, the .tel top-level domain was approved." notellmo.tel is going to be one of the first domains sold.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

.tel Coming Soon More

.tel Coming Soon

Comments Filter:

  • Dibs! (Score:5, Funny)

    by phantom_programmer ( 700386 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:15AM (#12958422)
    I want dontaskdont.tel.

    • OK, then I want "showand.tel"

    • Re:Dibs! (Score:4, Funny)

      by cd_serek ( 681446 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @05:14AM (#12959034)
      And if your name is Norman, why not try "batesmo.tel"
    • See, this is exactly the problem with these new TLDs. While I'm all for seeing more of the creative (and funny) names that can be made with them, people are going to abuse their meaning by making up phrases with them. Steve.jobs or blow.jobs anyone? TLDs like .com and .net don't seem to have this problem although they aren't necessarily used like they're supposed to anyway.
      • That's because there's very few english words that end in com, net, or org: intercom, bassinet, bayonet, bluebonnet, bonnet, cabinet, clarinet, cornet, coronet, dragnet, hornet, magnet, planet, signet, sonnet, subnet, sunbonnet---all of them taken. (No common word ends in org, unless you count Borg!)
        There's lots of .us word-play domains, since lots of english words end in .us. (I'm surprised hotfu.ck and hotbu.nz aren't registered... but hotsh.it is!)
        We will probably see cartel, chattel, mantel, and paste

  • mo.tel? (Score:1, Troll)

    by Antarius ( 542615 )
    Mo.tel, eh?

    I'm gonna go for kissand.tel - of course, we won't be seeing too many slashdot readers there, eh?

  • Evil domain to register... (Score:4, Funny)

    by inflex ( 123318 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:17AM (#12958432) Homepage Journal
    Win.tel :-)

    Wonder who's going to buy me out.

  • what's wrong with tel:// (Score:5, Interesting)

    by OsirisX11 ( 598587 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:18AM (#12958435)
    How is this different or better?
    Why is the sponsor of .tel the one who gets to make all the rules for it?
    This seems highly undemocratic and arbitrarily in favor of a corporation.

    Bitches.

    • .pad is what we need. (Score:3, Interesting)

      by MikeFM ( 12491 )
      I've been pushing for .pad as it could be for domains that are easy to type from a phone keypad. Thus it can use only letters available as the first press of a given key. A, D, G, J, M, P, T, and W. I wanted to make a non-profit called APT.PAD to sponsor the TLD. I imagine it being something like tinyurl for browsing from phones. Typing long or none-keypad friendly URLs is a pain on most phones.
      • "I imagine it being something like tinyurl for browsing from phones."

        It's already happening. I operate a TinyURL-equivilent-website, http://shortify.com/ [shortify.com], and I just registered the numerical equivilent of that URL (http://74678439.com/ [74678439.com]). As soon as the DNS comes up, you'll be able to use the service from your web-enabled mobile phone. The website is basic HTML/CSS (no tables, no images), so it should have no problem rendering in most phone browsers.

        Note also that, unlike TinyURL, Shortify uses 100% number

        • There's a *lot* of scope for compressing that code further...

          Also, you SHOULD NOT [w3.org] server XHTML-1.1 as text/html.

          Oh, and your CSS doesn't validate [w3.org].

          • "There's a *lot* of scope for compressing that code further..."

            Yes, but it's already under 1.5K, and, more importantly, it's readable. It doesn't make any sense to nuke linebreaks and indentation to save a couple of extra bytes.

            "Also, you SHOULD NOT server XHTML-1.1 as text/html."

            Try it in Firefox (or any other browser sending proper HTTP headers) - you should get the correct content-type. IE freaks on application/xhtml+xml.

            "Oh, and your CSS doesn't validate."

            Indeed. It would seem that "DarkBlue" is no
          • "Also, you SHOULD NOT server XHTML-1.1 as text/html."

            Note that the W3 specifies "SHOULD NOT", with the exception of maintaining compaibility with existing user-agents. Indeed, this is exactly what Shortify does - if your user-agent specifies that it accepts application/xhtml+xml, Shortify will serve it. If not, Shortify serves text/html for compatibility purposes.

            Also note that I never claimed to have valid XHTML/CSS. Of course, the website *does* have valid XHTML (1.1, none the less), and now it *does* h
    • Really they need to do the .sux tld. With the rule that a company is NOT allowed to buy their own name. :)

  • sex.tel (Score:3, Funny)

    by qualico ( 731143 ) <[worldcouchsurfer] [at] [gmail.com]> on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:19AM (#12958441) Journal
    yep, another party line.
  • The .xxx domain was renamed .telall, the .gov domain was renamed .telsecrets, and Microsoft bought win.tel.

  • notellmo.tel? (Score:5, Funny)

    by jemfinch ( 94833 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:26AM (#12958469) Homepage
    Forget notellmo.tel. in.tel is going to be the first domain sold.

    Jeremy

  • Purpose? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by SkiifGeek ( 702936 ) <info@beREDHATskerming.com minus distro> on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:26AM (#12958470) Homepage Journal

    Is this designed just to be another money maker, or is it actually designed to be useful?

    With the .xxx TLD, the consensus seemed to be that the .com TLD would still reign supreme, but the only real use would be a complete TLD for filtering companies to block. It seems like this might be headed the same way.

    Surely domain squatters will soon rush the registrar with registration of names suggested like win.tel, mo.tel, nor.tel, and so on, which would really defeat the purpose of a specialised .tel TLD if they could be registered.


    • I've been saying for quite some time now that TLDs besides .com are useless. If you don't have a .com, you have for the rest of your life explaining to people what your email or web address is for the rest of the time that you own the domain. Or at least until you do like slashdot did early on and buy the corresponding .com and redirect it or do something useful with it.

      Besides classic examples like whitehouse.com vs whitehouse.gov, can anyone give me an example of where there is a meaningful difference

      • There's no doubt that .com is a desirable domain. But there's also the fact that it's hard to find a good, short .com domain (witness mine!) these days.

        As for your question, I think the country-code TLDs are important (i.e. .ca, .fr, .de) and can make a lot of sense, especially for non-English sites. Actually, even corporate-owned sites can benefit from the different TLDs to put the proper locale spin on their sites.

        And of course, there are TLDs that aren't open to just anyone, and so by their very natu

        • As for your question, I think the country-code TLDs are important (i.e. .ca, .fr, .de) and can make a lot of sense, especially for non-English sites. Actually, even corporate-owned sites can benefit from the different TLDs to put the proper locale spin on their sites.

          Yes. I'm a firm believer in country TLDs because they mean something. I wish they were universally used, even in the United States. Its frustrating searching for something and getting English pound prices from a company in england. Its mo

          • So, that is why you opted for the short non .com domain eh?

            That was a bit of a struggle, actually. I couldn't find a good, short .com domain so I compromised on the title of the book. But then I had the problem that the URLs printed in the book would look horrible, so I also went and registered a short .com domain consisting of the first letters in each title word to get memwg.com [memwg.com] as a shorthand for MakeEasyMoneyWithGoogle.com [makeeasymo...google.com]. The shorthand form makes no sense unless you know the title of the book, bu

  • Enough suggestions al'eady! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by nmoog ( 701216 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:27AM (#12958472) Homepage Journal
    All of the hilarious domains are substantially less funny when you pronounce the dot. win dot tel? I dont geddit?
  • Will we ever get a domain with a price the same order than the associated cost (adding a small line in a database that is then cached by the ISP servers)

  • First sugar hill gang post... (Score:4, Funny)

    by 3.5 stripes ( 578410 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:27AM (#12958475)
    hotelmo.tel holiday inn, and if you keep on acting up, I'll just fuck your friend..

    ok, doesn't work.
  • ssh.dont.tel ?

    or perhaps...

    dont.ask.dont.tel ?

  • Are certain regulatory bodies receiving kickbacks? (Score:3, Funny)

    by mikeophile ( 647318 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:32AM (#12958500)
    ICANN.tel
  • car.tel

  • helpful tool (Score:2, Informative)

    by songofthephoenix ( 858004 )
    If you are looking for words that suite that top level domain use a crossword solver to get word matches.
    This one: http://www.oneacross.com/ [oneacross.com] is my favourite.

    i.e ???tel returns cartel, pastel etc

  • dibs (Score:1, Redundant)

    by nilbog ( 732352 )
    I got dibs on in.tel

  • Abolish TLDs (Score:5, Insightful)

    by k98sven ( 324383 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @02:41AM (#12958537) Journal
    Another TLD.. Who-hoo.

    Isn't it time they get rid of them instead? They don't have any meaning anymore. They just create a hassle when you have to remember if that site was '.org' or '.net' or '.com' or whatever.

    And this in turn does nothing but generate business for domain-squatters anyway.

    The internet is too big nowadays for tacking-on a TLD to provide unique identification. And 'solving' that by creating more TLDs only aggrevates the problem.

    And de facto most people are using Google or some other search engine anyway. Guessing at the domain name just doesn't work as well as it once did.

    • Re:Abolish TLDs (Score:4, Interesting)

      by pe1chl ( 90186 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @03:04AM (#12958625)
      I fully agree. Everyone should be able to register immediately at the top level. Why type "google.com" when "google" is sufficient?

      Hierarchical domain names were once invented to structure things, and to avoid name clashes by subdividing the namespace and allow the same name to be registered in different TLDs.
      But there has not been enough active management of the namespace in the early days (providing TLDs as required by increasing name registration demand), and also the market has shown that it does not understand the mechanism. Instead of registering under an appropriate TLD, it has become commonplace to register in as many places as possible.

      As the entire mechanism has already been defeated, why bother to make minor changes now it is much too late?
      • It is clear, that some of TLDs were mismanaged (namely .com, .org and .net), but the most of them (.mil, .gov, .edu, .int and most of the two-letter, country-specific TLDs) were properly used. It is well understood, that, for example, that www.sony.de is the site for the German branch of Sony and is in German, while www.sony.com is the international/USA site (and is in English).
        • But why does sony have to register 300 different .aaa and .aa names instead of one single .sony where they can put their country selection menu?

          In the early days there was very strict management of .nl (the first country-specific TLD). A company could register only a single name, names to be registered were screened not to be too generic and not offensive.
          However, this turned out to be impractical. Anyone who had their name turned down would refer to a list of other names that were approved, and threaten
      • As the entire mechanism has already been defeated, why bother to make minor changes now it is much too late?
        Money.

    • Re:Abolish TLDs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 1u3hr ( 530656 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @03:24AM (#12958688)
      Isn't it time they get rid of them instead? They don't have any meaning anymore.

      Not quite. I think the CCTLDs are necessary and useful. Also .gov and .gov.cctld. Maybe edu. The rest by the lack of enforcement of any conditions have just become a scam to deceive surfers and fleece companies by forcing them to pay or be squatted by a look-alike or worse. No porn site is going to exclusively use .xxx, no telephone company is exclusively going to use .tel.

      • Could TLD's be usefull if they were properly restricted? I could imagine .CHAR which you can only get if you are a registered charity, .BANK if you are a real bank etc. Or would that be to easy to trick?
        • Could TLD's be usefull if they were properly restricted?

          They could be, but as most are controlled by commercial registrars who make money by selling domains rather than restricing them, it's not going to happen, or if it does there will be constant pressure to allow money to override any other criteria.

      • No porn site is going to exclusively use .xxx, no telephone company is exclusively going to use .tel.

        Hence: get rid of TLDs...

        I agree with the other who think TLDs are a thing of the past and are no longer useful. I understand your point that they can be useful, but I think their usefulness can be incorporated into whatever name one wants.

        Example:

        Instead of typing in http://www.whitehouse.gov/ [whitehouse.gov] to see what the Retard In Chief is up to, I could simply type "whitehouse" and bingo - done.

        Instead o

        • Hence: get rid of TLDs...

          No, I must disagree. As I mentioned, .gov, .edu. .mil are regulated and not sold to the first bidder so you know if you go to one of these sites you're not going to get a phishing &/or porn site. Instead of typing in http://www.whitehouse.gov/ [whitehouse.gov] to see what the Retard In Chief is up to, I could simply type "whitehouse" and bingo - done.

          This can be and is a function in most browsers. No need to remove it from the actual URL. This is rather like the way Windows hides the file e

    • TLDs are useful for establishing control and resolving disputes. Controlled TLDs let everybody agree that notedame.com could belong to a cathedral, a school, or a porn site, but notredame.edu can only belong to the school. And they're going to resolve any conflicts about it among themselves; that is, just between schools with claims to the name. That makes the discussion a bit more civilized.

      Even then it helps to have your TLD sufficiently well publicized. You can get away with .edu, but I'm hard presse

    • Re:Abolish TLDs (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Mr Smidge ( 668120 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @08:53AM (#12960138) Homepage
      The old .com and .net suffix were put there for a reason, and things could still possibly be put right.

      If there were no TLDs, and you registered "prestige", as your own domain name, then it could easily conflict with any number of other people who have legitimate uses for that name:
      * Companies in your country called "prestige".
      * Anyone in another country wanting the name "prestige" - perhaps it has a different meaning in another country's tongue?
      * Companies in other countries.

      I think there's definitely a need to separate:
      * Domain names in different countries/continents.
      * Commercial domains.
      * Official government bodies of countries/regions.
      * Non-profit organisations, and personal-use domains.

      You see, the original system wasn't so bad after all. I think it is just a lack of regulation when registering for domains that has ruined things. And everybody's guilty - I mean, look at me: I own a .net domain name and I'm not an ISP.

      However, I don't think there's any easy way to kick things back into shape now. But if it had been done properly to begin with, things would be ok.

      If I had my way, the only top-level domains would be .int (international), .eu/.asia/.. (continents), and country codes. No top-level .com or .org addresses. Also, the US isn't special - why should .gov, .edu etc. represent US institutions?

      Take a look at these:
      prestige.co.us - clearly a company called 'prestige' in the US.
      foobar.edu.fr - The 'foobar' educational facility in France.
      trade.gov.tv - The trade department of the Tuvalu government (a bit random, but you see my point).

      I really do think that these extra TLDs detract from the point of it all. Telcoms are just companies; they don't need their own TLD. I was never even fully convinced about the need for a .net TLD either.

      Is there any hope of enforcing a bit more regulation to get things into a sensible state?
      • * Commercial domains.
        * Non-profit organisations, and personal-use domains.

        How do you do this? What about is someone starts a company, and uses it for personal info. ... and then closes the company. What about when someone has a personal domain, and then starts making money (hello slashdot.ORG). The .org/.com difference isn't useful or enforcable.

        • The cases you mention might be things to consider when applying to renew your domain name. So:
          * You couldn't continue to register mycompany.co.us if your company went out of business two years ago.
          * Similarly, if you apply to renew your non-profit domain name, and those in charge see a 'subscribe for only $10' link on the front page, they might base a decision on whether to allow to renew on that.

          I don't pretend that I can come up with a solution that fits every need perfectly (indeed the one I mentioned
    • Having a finite size list of top level domains makes the problem of domain search much easier from a technical perspective. I believe that you could have tens of thousands of top level domains and still be able to manage it from a technical perspective.

      I propose the following:

      1. Every domain name registered must have a single period (.) in it somwhere (ie be a second level domain name
      2. When you register a domain name you choose your second level domain and up to ten top level domains
        1. One of the top leve
  • I got sue by Intel [intel.com] for using in.tel .
  • bates.mo.tel.
  • Ma.tel
    ho.tel
    k.tel
    Q.tel
    one.tel
    car.tel
    chat.tel
    hos.tel
    lin.tel
    man.tel
    pas.tel
    and the ever famous imgonna.tel
  • hospi.tel

  • Political statement in what it does NOT do (Score:5, Interesting)

    by hta ( 7593 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @03:08AM (#12958635) Homepage Journal
    If ICANN has accepted this request, it is a very subtle political statement. Check out section 15.1.1 of the application - "Avoiding established addressing systems and regulations" - it promises NOT to try to put phone numbers in the .tel domain.
    Other .tel proposals have suggested exactly that, and this has had ITU in a tizzy.
    By registering this utterly useless .tel TLD, ICANN is making a statement that it will not create TLDs that say up front that they're out to upset the ITU national regulators' club and its telephone numbers fun-and-games.
    I'm neither surprised nor unhappy. .tel as described is utterly useless, but the other proposed usages of .tel had a potential to cause damage in addition to being useless.

    • the other proposed usages of .tel had a potential to cause damage in addition to being useless

      First, these are the two .TEL applications:

      I can see how there could be some confusion with the numbering systems in the world if we had the number-based .tel TLD. But, it could at least be potentially useful. I see no value in a name-based .tel except that the registry operator, accredited registrars, and IC

  • ...register Bech.tel.

  • When are we gonna get... (Score:3, Funny)

    by exley ( 221867 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @03:18AM (#12958670) Homepage
    ... a .fart toplevel domain? Because I really want to register clownpenis.fart -- the last name available on the internet.

  • Quote of the Day (Score:2, Informative)

    by obender ( 546976 )
    Ad astra per aspera. [To the stars by aspiration.]

    AFAIK aspera does not mean aspiration, it means roughness, difficulties.

  • Mac.tel!!! And a big logo of an apple breaking through a window
  • sittingonmy.tel
    And the obvious comeback:
    moveyer.tel
    Of course most of you probably think these ideas are a:
    paininthe.tel
    so I'll stop now.
  • Can't this entire TLD business be eliminated altogether. Why can't there be free form hostnames - I think we've come across a long way to build nameservers & client libraries to support it. It will be a big hassle, but it could be pigyybacked with IPv6 and deployed along with it.

    So we could have websites like: http://intel.inside/ [intel.inside] OR http://intel-inside/ [intel-inside] (who needs dots other than http://slash./ [slash.] )

    It could work better for branding as well!

    Nandz.

    • Re:Why the hierarchy? (Score:2, Insightful)

      by seti ( 74097 )
      The whole point of the TLD system is to have distributed authorities for various branches in the tree. The system you suggest would require exactly one authority to manage everything (including dns updates).
  • After reading the application for .tel by Telnic, the company applying to run .tel, I'm still puzzled why ICANN would allow this TLD. Is their idea to compartmentalize the Domain namespace by TLD? So the domain juegos.tel is my phone address, while juegos.xxx hosts my private porn collection? One explanation by Telnic why .tel is needed is, that people already have too many addresses to remember (home phone, mobile, work, fax, email, IM etc.). But it's totally unclear how .tel would fix this. For Interne
  • Why isn't there complete freedom to use whatever one likes?

  • Well, huzzah.... (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Mac Degger ( 576336 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @04:48AM (#12958932) Journal
    Ok....it's TLD soup now. With just a few TLD's, it was usefull to have them regulated. But by now there's just a couple too many of them (you gotta try [companyyou'retryingtoreach].com/net/org/biz/tv/in fo/xxx/tel/[countrycode] and hope you get the correct one). I think now it's gone far enough that arbitrary [maybe 3/4 character limited] TLD's wouldn't cloud the already clouded situation.

    In this cluttered TLD-age, why not have www.[yourname].[surname]?
    • In this cluttered TLD-age, why not have www.[yourname].[surname]?
      You've been able to register [first].[last].name for a couple years now.
      Email is automatically forwarded from [first]@[last].name.
  • ISTR that there were a pile of them already "reserved" by telcos the world over by .tel and this is how they got them on-side.

    I think the .tv guys were involved too.

    (caveat: I did some work for the 2001 proposal in a former life, and have no knowledge of what's happened since then, so this may be complete bollocks now).
  • and set up a frww cooperatively run registry?

    Dibs on y.all !
  • ... it works for either:

    cheap-ho.tel

  • Baseball Legend (Score:4, Funny)

    by jeepliberty ( 624159 ) on Friday July 01, 2005 @07:36AM (#12959576) Homepage Journal
    For the old time baseball fans: mickey.man.tel. The site admin is Babe Root.
  • Could someone explain why in 2005 do we even need top level domains?
  • Here is what the document claims is the usage model for .tel:

    2.5. How is the .Tel used?

    Individuals could use their name as a personal "brand" or a universal identity
    accessible from any Internet-enabled communications device to publish their
    contact information or other personal data. For example, Adam Smith could
    develop a personal mini-website that provides general information about himself
    including his contact information, such as phone numbers, and email addresses.
    Adam would be able to update and manage

  • For on line wine purchases: musca.tel
  • notellmo.tel is going to be one of the first domains sold.

    If it is, it has to be sold to the NoTel Motel in Tucson, Arizona. Yes there really is such a place, and yes it's right next to the unofficial Red Light street district.

Slashdot Top Deals

Genius is ten percent inspiration and fifty percent capital gains.

Close