Dot-Word TLDs Further Delayed 86
benfrog writes "The security bug that has been stalling the 'dot-word TLD land grab' might be fixed, but ICANN says it needs another week 'to sift through its mountains of TAS logs, in order to figure out which applicants' data was visible to which other applicants.' Needless to say, some are less than thrilled about the further delay."
Am I Bovvered? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
This was a first post, and asks an entirely relevant question. The fact that it was posted as AC is not relevant.
Therefore it should *not* have been modded Redundant.
NB: "bovvered" is British slang for "bothered".
Yes, we should have more gTLDs! (Score:2)
Some of you may not remember the Internet before ICANN (:-), which was founded about a year after The September That Never Ended, but back when there were only seven gTLDs, the IETF was looking at expanding them, and the Internet Ad-Hoc Committee (IAHC) was their organization that was working on it, and had a proposal for adding seven more fairly lame gTLDs (which was a good approach, because they were going to make mistakes in the process and learn things that nobody had expected, so it was better to do a
I am less than thrilled... (Score:5, Insightful)
...at ICANT's continuing strategy to turn this TLD thing into a blackmail scheme for companies, orgs, schools, etc. "Here, buy another domain because someone might squat on it!"
It's not my job to deal with that directly, but as a geek it rubs me the wrong way. It's deliberately injecting chaos into an already chaotic system. It's not like TLDs outside of .net, .org, .com, .edu, and cc codes matter. When is the last time you visited a company that used .biz that wasn't a fly-by-night spammer? Yeah, thought so.
--
BMO
Re:I am less than thrilled... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:I am less than thrilled... (Score:4, Funny)
>.fart
What's for sure is that Apple is going to buy .iFart
--
BMO
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FU
Not if I get that domain *first* :)
I won't be squatting either. Going right on my business cards.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree, of course. The whole idea is ridiculous, and I won't go beating a dead horse here.
I'm more interested in those "less-than-thrilled" people who would pay $185,000 just for the right to submit an application. The one linked in TFS has this interesting advice on how to deal with a security glitch:
So my advice to ICANN now: get your skates on! A typically British expression with a clear meaning: restart TAS. Stop faffing about trying to verify every single bit of applicant data that may have been impacted by the glitch. Your updates keep on telling us how no data was corrupted and no sensitive data from one applicant was even visible by another. So do a 180 degree shift in your current crisis management.
Horrible advice, if you ask me. We're talking about large corporate entities who think putting down $185k for the right to apply for a vanity domain is money well spent. I'm guessing these guys are also
Re:I am less than thrilled... (Score:5, Insightful)
We're talking about large corporate entities who think putting down $185k for the right to apply for a vanity domain is money well spent
In other words, crooks!
Call me old-school, call me a goddamned luddite, but I see nothing wrong with the current set of TLDs. What I do see wrong with the system is the continued encouragement of domain squatting by entities who add zero value to the internet. We don't need more domains, we need the current ones to be taken away from some of these parasitic organisations who thrive on "tasting", search spam, and pure flipping. There are domains that have been held ransom for 15+ years now, which have never been associated with a proper site other than "click here to buy this domain".
My solution is quite simple: unless you own a registered trademark, or use your real name or surname, you have to use it or lose it! That takes care of a ALL existing domain squatters who hang on to tens of thousands of domains each, because it only takes one four-figure sale a month to subsidize their entire rotten portfolio. The way ICANN has handled things is an absolute travesty and a gross distortion of DNS' original purpose: to help people find stuff!
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? What part of "unless..., or..., or..., you have to use it or lose it!" did you fail to understand?
Re: (Score:2)
But what constitutes use? Is this use? http://buywii.com/ [buywii.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You're the one who neglected to address that question, not me. :)
Re: (Score:3)
fuckers
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
And please tell me who is going to tell what I must put on my site so it isn't domain squatting? That would mean telling be what content I can not put on my site. That is a slippery slope to censorship.
I am against domain squatting just as you are, but I am even more against people telling me what I can put on my site and what not.
Exactly. What constitutes "use it" in "use it or lose it"?
Must I have a landing page with contact info? Must I have some sort of somewhat functional website? What if I'm using the domain to host a private VPN for me? Just an email server? Is a redirect from something.mine to mine.com acceptable?
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, ICANN, squat on this!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I actually find www.cyberciti.biz [cyberciti.biz] to be quite handy if I need to look something up that is Ubuntu related. I do admit though, that this is I think the first .biz site that have ever found that is useful - I guess that makes it the exception that proves the rule right?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell instragr.am that.
Re: (Score:2)
"...at ICANT's continuing strategy to turn this TLD thing into a blackmail scheme for companies, orgs, schools, etc. "Here, buy another domain because someone might squat on it!"
This is the argument put forth by the Intellectual Property folks. It doesn't hold water. Sorry the world isn't com/net/org but nobody gets exclusive use of a shared resource to impose their will on it. You're supposed to have learned this in kindergarten.
Can you imagine is Usenet was sueable like ICANN is ? rec.autos.chrysler might
Re: (Score:2)
You have this backwards.
Usenet newsgroup hierarchies are in the opposite direction of FQDN hierarchies.
Introducing a .chrysler TLD is not the same as creating the newsgroup rec.automobiles.chrysler. Creating a TLD .chrysler is akin to creating a whole new Usenet hierarchy unto itself and adding to the Big 8 (I'm ignoring alt for the sake of clarity) - comp. humanities. misc. news. rec. sci. soc. talk. - by appending chrysler. making a Big 9.
In this way, creating willy-nilly TLDs removes the entire reason
.LOL (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I cann has TLD?
Thanks! I needed the laugh this morning. That was classic.
Meh (Score:3)
People have waited 15 years for ICANN to finish placating the intectual property wonks and actually do this. A few more days? Pfttttttt...
How many applications are they getting? (Score:4, Funny)
At $185k apiece, I wouldn't think you'd get that many applications to sort through.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A glorified bunch of text that points names to ip addresses with a layer of security on top, with a web interface for users + merchant + ecommerce tools. Any asshole with some technical skill and the ability to follow directions could run a domain name registry.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like the range I'd expect. Hardly server-crashing numbers.
Evolution (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a time when having a good domain name was required to be found on Internet. In those days, people paid insane amount of money to buy domains.
Then Google came, and changed everything. The domain name was not that important anymore, not as much as getting a good ranking, for which content was key. So people paid good money to generate content (aka blogs) and enlisted the help of (so-called) SEO specialist, some of which went to far (ask JcPenney).
Then Facebook came, and changed things even more. No more websites, no more blogs - "just visit our Facebook page and Like us, we'll give you a voucher for a free bottle of shampoo".
I may be silly but I say: fix DNS and bring back the domains. I don't like Liking and I hate blogs.
Re: (Score:2)
LYCOS FOREVER!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was about to pipe up that Altavista was decent if you got to know how to use it... but yeah, I don't think that many people got to the point where they could find what they wanted in the first few results...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
but it was the first to make it possible for non-geeks to find what they were looking for on the Internet.
Uh, yeah - no.
Google's results were exactly as shitty as everyone else's, for many years. What made Google a force was the simple fact that they didn't plaster ten metric megaasstons of bullshit all over their search page.
Bitter nerdrage led to geeks immediately switching to Google instead of shitty portal sites, and they told their families and friends, who for once listened to them - because fuck, people were on dialup, man - dialup! And Google, with nary an ad or news story to be seen, loaded quicke
Re: (Score:2)
Google's results were exactly as shitty as everyone else's, for many years.
You forget just how bad things were before Google. I remember the bad old days, and they were terrible. Finding things with AltaVista was really extremely hit-and-miss, and Yahoo! was only good if they happened to want to index what you were interested in (invariably not for me). Google indexed more, and gave much more precise results too. (Nowadays, all search engines are much better than they used to be; the general level of deployed technology has moved on.)
What made Google a force was the simple fact that they didn't plaster ten metric megaasstons of bullshit all over their search page.
That was a nice bonus, but the fact that they t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Google's results were exactly as shitty as everyone else's,
Bullshit. When google appeared on the scene, they were a revelation. Google's algorithm for looking at relationships between pages & links rather than just counting the number of times a search term appeared on a page was orders or magnitude better than lycos, exite, altavista, etc.
It took 10 years for Google's results to become (nearly) as shitty as everyone else's.
Frankly if you think that, you probably discovered google in 2004 when the compe
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Nope, I didn't forget that. Google's results were indeed polluted during the early 2000s, but their results were still better than anyone else's.
Re:Evolution (Score:5, Informative)
Annoying that to close the "convenience" loop, the *browsers* started redirecting dns misses to search engines, and that even a mistyped ping target no longer returns "unreachable" because your ISP is trying to advertise their own affiliates. This all meaning that even a *wrong* number is a *number* pointing to someone. That's like doing chat-roulette.
I got tired of manually changing my ISP's modem IPs to non-poisoned DNS, because once in a while failing to use DHCP ones results in complete loss of DNS for some reason.
Off on a tangent about how fake our root level and IPv4 progress is: .FUR is apparently extremely sparsely populated.) And the two total search engines for that thing aren't even OOG_THE_CAVEMAN approved.
If I lived alone at home, I could undo all of these "nifty" features, but static IP settings often stop working with 30 days with my large ISP that I don't care to name. I've had to give up on IPv6 because tunnels were not trustworthy and turned flaky...
Due to flakiness I stopped looking into enigmatic alternative DNS services [wikipedia.org], though rumors of any life in OpenNic are greatly exaggerated (even
So we see only TLD infrastructure changes actually making it to a browser near us, but little else in terms of paradigm changes. New standards take huge companies and OS makers to push, when they feel like it, and then it's a whole decade for adoption to actually kick in (we got approval for ditching IE6 support only months ago, while sardonically non-IE browsers all decided to stop graceful degradation as users switch to them.)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
*browsers* started redirecting dns misses to search engines, and that even a mistyped ping target no longer returns "unreachable" because your ISP is trying to advertise their own affiliates.
The browser could not possible affect ping. The browser redirects URL's that are unreachable, but they cannot do anything about any thing other than that. This is the fault of your ISP (and if it was done by your ISP, your browser wouldn't see and error and wouldn't reject it anyway).
Off on a tangent about how fake our root level and IPv4 progress is:[...]
This is only for ``consumer'' grade internet. A simpler idea to get around this is to rent a VPS (I've seen them as low as 3$ per month) and install OpenVPS or some other proxy setup and route through that. As those are used to
Re: (Score:2)
In case anyone was wondering, the AC's link above is an actual article complaining about ICANN. I thought it might be one of the usual troll pictures, but nope.
(OT: I can cross my eyes which for some reason makes everything very fuzzy; it's useful sometimes when I don't want to see something distinctly like now or when I'm looking through a page with spoilers all over. I've always vaguely wondered if everyone can do that.)
All the new tld's are dizzying. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I still run into people who can't send to my .mobi domain because their ISP does some dumb preverification of the e-mail address (I think it's checking for more than 3 characters in the TLD) and automatically rejects.
I also get sites that don't let me buy from them because of my .mobi e-mail address. Stupidly, their support address works just fine, but try to create an account with a .mobi and it gets rejected.
I can't wait to see what happens when these idiots run into dot-word TLDs. I hope .gmail takes o
Oh more TLD lore (Score:1)
Remind me what TLDs have done for the world? Great idea, but bad because normal people do not know what they are. I work at a .org, and a coworker thinks wikipedia.com is wikipedia.org Why? Wikipedia.com works. Nobody uses .biz, .name, .museum, .mobi or .org or anything but .com and ocassionally .edu I dont think anyone knows what .net or .ly are. In fact google is my hostname looker upper just like most peoples.
Re: (Score:2)
Remind me what TLDs have done for the world? Great idea, but bad because normal people do not know what they are. I work at a .org, and a coworker thinks wikipedia.com is wikipedia.org Why? Wikipedia.com works. Nobody uses .biz, .name, .museum, .mobi or .org or anything but .com and ocassionally .edu I dont think anyone knows what .net or .ly are. In fact google is my hostname looker upper just like most peoples.
I visit plenty of .org sites and used to run one. There's a lot of useful stuff on various .edu sites. On the other hand, I can think of only one legitimate .biz site i've used. I vaguely recall going to a .name site once. And until this thread, I've never heard of .museum, .mobi, or .ly.
Re: (Score:1)
You've never come across a bit.ly link?
7online (Score:2)
Speaking of TLDs, one thing that irks me is a certain major local channel [wikipedia.org] that, inconsistently but increasingly, has dropped the .com from mentions of its 7online website (especially during their local news) and even shows subpaths as e.g. 7online/protect (what you'd see if you ever run into their missing person commercial things). As you'd expect, that URL doesn't work-as-given.
I'm not sure how much of that is laziness, how much is preparation for a future move to a .7online TLD (!!!), and how much is ESP [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Speaking of TLDs, one thing that irks me is a certain major local channel [wikipedia.org] that, inconsistently but increasingly, has dropped the .com from mentions of its 7online website (especially during their local news) and even shows subpaths as e.g. 7online/protect (what you'd see if you ever run into their missing person commercial things). As you'd expect, that URL doesn't work-as-given.
In Firefox it takes me to a Google search, where the first result is their homepage (not /protect). In bing I get a single result with their page. While what you say seems like a conspiracy theory, I can think of no other explanation for this (well, laziness like you said). I thought it was like BBC saying "Search for <Show> <Topic>" instead of giving a URL, but this is even worse, they give an incorrect URL.
I don't understand this aversion to .com URLs. Everyone knows what they are and how to u
how successful was the initiative? (Score:1)
Seems like nobody here likes the idea of .* domain names. Is there anyone out there who likes it?
Are there public stats showing how many applications ICANN received, and for which names? /me really curious about the results.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't think of a single reason what so ever to have a strong opinion on this. Ehh if they do, Ehh if they don't.
re-root them to .icann (Score:2)
... and let them create all the domains they want there. Meanwhile we can go about setting up a new TLD managed by someone who can do so responsibly.
Re: (Score:1)
point your systems to the new root, and everyone starts over. all sub-domains of the .onion root can only be accessed by tor.
back to having .com .org .ru .us
We don't need anything else.
Re: (Score:2)