Startup Applies For 307 GTLDs 239
itwbennett writes "Startup Donuts has set its sights on being a domain-name registry. With $100 million in venture capital in its pocket, Donuts has applied for 307 of the most generic of generic top-level domains. The new domains will be targeted toward specific services, said Jon Nevett, a cofounder and vice president of corporate affairs at Donuts. For example, the .tickets domain would be where Web users could expect to go to buy event tickets. 'There will be more names geared toward what consumers are looking for,' Nevett said."
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A records (Score:5, Funny)
No. The best website for selling tickets should be tickets.tickets.tickets
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Doesn't seem very enthusiastic. Maybe the next step ICANN should take is exclamation marks?
tickets!tickets!tickets!
Re:A records (Score:4, Funny)
You mean we get to return to bang paths! Awesome.
Re:A records (Score:5, Insightful)
!netcom :-)
Really these domains are useless. Someone in some registrar, somewhere, is going to make a killing, by selling something that decreases in value, with every additional TLD. The businees will quickly dry up, thereafter.
I will be filtering them, confidently from lookups on my nets. Any of these "TLDs" will also have a regular .com or .org, anyway. They will be located through search, and noone will bother typing any of them - ever.
Re: (Score:2)
It is all about slimy ass hats who think they are smarter than everyone else trying to sell the same domain names over and over and over again. So companies like Ford, Coco Cola, McDonalds buy out every top level domain name variant of their company name to prevent them pointing to competitors, oh so sorry, they don't but them, they only get to pay rent on them forever. They are trying to turn domain names into some sort of pathetic con artist investor get rich quick scheme.
Based upon this bullshit it wo
Re: (Score:3)
Clod computing.
I love it.
I am employed, by helping secure clods.
Re: (Score:2)
wonder if porn.porn.porn is taken.
Re: (Score:2)
also .donuts for those that want donuts
Re: (Score:2)
There's a huge legal coming over who owns girls.girls.girls [youtube.com].
Re:A records (Score:5, Funny)
There's a huge legal coming over who owns girls.girls.girls [youtube.com].
So the lawyers are all ejaculating over this? A reasonable assumption, I'd say...
I hope they do not start to put limit on the Net (Score:4, Insightful)
What I am afraid is, after ICANN granted the ".tickets" GTLD, someone will find a way to insist that if you want to sell tickets, any kind of tickets, online, you have to sell 'em through one of those ".tickets" domains
My sincere hope is that nobody would do that. But then, when big money is involved, who knows ?
Re:I hope they do not start to put limit on the Ne (Score:4, Interesting)
It's not like they are sticking to the rules about .org and .net, so I don't think they would mandate you need a .tickets to sell tickets.
Mandating that you would have to purchase one would only make sense if you needed help to sell out the space. With asshat squatters and speculators I sincerely doubt they will have problems selling it.
Re:A records (Score:5, Funny)
Quick... someone get developers.developers.developers! All the monkeyboy videos you could ask for.
Re:A records (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
+1 funny,
Re:A records (Score:4, Funny)
Re:A records (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's a vanity purchase.
Considering that it is just a blatant attempt to print money, they should just phase out specific tlds anyways and just allow anybody and everybody to purchase a .whatever tld.
But why do that when for every tld you can rake in a couple hundred thousand dollars up front and then millions upon million upon millions reselling the same subdomains over and over and over again to businesses and paranoid people who want to control their brand?
No no no! (Score:3)
That is too much non-specific not enough cash being paid to me.
Now you'll be going to domain.tickets for your ticketing needs.
In your example the user would need to know which domain to go to while in the new paradigm the user will only need to know what domain to go to. Much more efficient. Particularly since I did not have the funding/foresight to buy tickets.com when it was available.
On a less ridiculous note, I can see the ".web" gTLD but the others are just STUPID. .vodka ? .restaurant ? .doctor ?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
as much as i misspell... .tix or something?
shouldn;t they make it like
Re: (Score:2)
That is too much non-specific not enough cash being paid to me.
Now you'll be going to domain.tickets for your ticketing needs.
In your example the user would need to know which domain to go to while in the new paradigm the user will only need to know what domain to go to. Much more efficient.
you are joking, right? User and knowledge? thats what Google is for.
Re: (Score:2)
How is that less ridiculous? Who uses the Internet and doesn't associate http:// with the WWW already???
On a more ridiculous note, maybe now someone can finally get cracking on a web presence for Dillon Edwards Investments [clownpenis.fart].
Re: (Score:2)
tickets.domain.com
Next?
I could see, maybe, why some people would want this, but $100,000,000 worth? No, never happen, this will never make $100,000,000 in profits.
And it's owned by Paul Stahura who started eNom in 1997, so why did he need $100 million? [itworld.com] Is eNom not going that great?
Ultimately it does not matter your domain, what matters is if people can find your website when they search for it, so really Google, Bing and Yahoo are important, not the domain name. It's not 1997 anymore, you don't need to say "go to blahbla
Re: (Score:3)
It matters not when youre a sleaze and can sucker some VCs out of $100mil, you set your salary at $500k/yr, ride the avalanche for a couple years, easy $1mil...
Re: (Score:3)
Such quaint, outdated, old-fashioned thinking.
I mean, just look at this. How does it leverage our investment in the cloud? How will it empower the core business? Where's the synergy with our customer expectations?..
See, you can't even answer basic questions like that. That's because you can't even envision the value-add that diversity brings to the table. We've got to think out of the box!
AOL Keywords (Score:5, Insightful)
Everything old comes back it seems. Why does this look exactly like AOL Keywords reborn?
We know nobody will be bothering registering subdomains on these turds. It will just be 'tickets' resold to the highest bidder.
Re:AOL Keywords (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
No, it's QR codes.
Boop your phone on this graphic to go to foo.bar.baz, and it frankly doesn't matter what your tld is.
Re: (Score:2)
also i have an IPO to sell.
Re:AOL Keywords (Score:4, Insightful)
I think it's a stupid idea as much as the next poster here, but I really think this is going to play a part in the future. Imagine typing only "google" into the address bar and getting google. Tickets could take you to ticketmaster. It won't be ticketmaster.tickets, it will just be tickets, with a recirect to ticketmaster.com. It's like taking out the www. "www.google.com" becomes "google.com" becomes "google". It also is "exclusive". The barrier to entry is rather high for a non-large organization (100K + yearly fees IIRC, which I may not) It would create a divide between the haves and have nots. The havenots get stuck with putting
The parent nailed it though. Keywords are back baby!
Re: (Score:2)
Even better: try it! I've seen too many people access Google via IE/Bing this way.
Between integrated search, bookmarks and Facebook pages these "exclusive" domain names are already rather redundant. Users will hit Google first when searching for something, they're used to it.
How will Ticketmaster inform users they can simply enter 'tickets' into their addressbar? "Shouldn't there be a .com behind that?" At least with 'tickets.com' it's cle
Re: (Score:2)
How will they inform people? Oh I don't know? TV? Website adds? use your imagination. What does
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine typing only "google" into the address bar and getting google.
"Imagine"? With most browsers, that's what you get now.
Re: (Score:2)
Imagine typing only "google" into the address bar and getting google.
Add a pause before hitting enter, and you basically have Chrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does this look exactly like AOL Keywords reborn?
Uh, it doesn't?
This isn't 'tickets', it's e.g. van-halen.tickets/boston
Fire up your 302's.
Re: (Score:2)
We know nobody will be bothering registering subdomains on these turds.
Fine then... I call dibs on SPEEDING.TICKETS
Re: (Score:2)
I'm getting.
I.am.batman
List? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:List? (Score:4, Interesting)
After looking through the list [newgtldsite.com] I am surprised at how few of them caught my eye. At $185k a pop I thought, wrongly, that the list would be of a bit higher quality than your typical domain name goldrush when a new tld is released, but I'm not sure there are really any on that list that I would consider registering a domain with. The only ones I wouldn't mind are .web and .tech, but I'm rather indifferent when we've always had a tld (.net) that encompasses both of those.
Many just don't sound right, like .dog, the only domain names I can come up with that don't sound ridiculous followed by "dot dog" are generic types of dogs, like sheep.dog or hunting.dog, and even then the singular doesn't make any sense, hunting.dogs sounds much better. .sport is another WTF, whoever ends up with blood.sport may be content, but there's nothing after that. And .website is great for those times when you don't know if the website you're on is a website.
.sex and .porn were entirely predictable, and I have no doubt that .rocks and .sucks sites will soon plague us all, but I think .inc and .llc are maybe the biggest winners so far, as a .com alternative they should rake in big bucks, but it makes me wonder why we didn't have these 20 years ago.
I wish they whould have restricted it to 4 chars max, maybe even 3, the majority of this is more .travel and .museum tlds that will be about as successful.
My biggest surprise is that the two things I most expected to happen did not, at least not yet. I thought for sure that the MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL at a minimum would be the first in line. It seems like a natural fit to have yankees.mlb, patriots.nfl, etc, it looks like .MLS is the only one so far. And that there would be some common file extensions registered like .txt, .exe, .ttf, .pdf, .zip, and seriously no .mp3 ?
And still no indication of a clownpenis.fart any time soon...
Can we short them yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
> For example, the .tickets domain would be where Web users could expect to go to buy event tickets.
I regularly start with a TLD and work backwards when I'm looking for things, rather than searching Google...
*facepalm*
Re: (Score:2)
You can search in specific domains on Google.
Re:Can we short them yet? (Score:4, Funny)
> For example, the .tickets domain would be where Web users could expect to go to buy event tickets.
I regularly start with a TLD and work backwards when I'm looking for things, rather than searching Google...
*facepalm*
You're in luck! Google registered the .google TLD so you can start your Google search by using the TLD!
Re: (Score:2)
registering .Schadenfreude
Re: (Score:2)
That actually would be interesting, if they owned the tld then a address bar search could work like: "free screensavers -virus.google" and the browser would take care of the %20s and all that.
I still think all these generic tlds are pointless for the end user and only serves to make money for icann and any of these companies trying to become registrars.
The original com/net/org domains just made so much more sense. They were short, and even if their original meaning was mostly lost to the public at large (be
Re: (Score:2)
I regularly start with a TLD and work backwards when I'm looking for things, rather than searching Google...
And where would you start?
tickets.tickets?
search.tickets?
help.tickets?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Can we short them yet? (Score:5, Interesting)
I regularly start with a TLD and work backwards when I'm looking for things, rather than searching Google...
*facepalm*
Yeah I never really understood the logic here. The best site for searching isn't search.com, the best site for porn isn't porn.com, the best site for buying books isn't books.com, and we all know the best social networking site isn't socialnetwork.com. In fact I'm struggling to think of even one case where the name of a TLD actually is the best site in it's category? I don't understand why anyone would pay a premium for a TLD when it is demonstrated to make no difference to the success of your site?
No one memorizes domains anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
I've seen less-computer-literate people type in the entire URL into google (e.g. open google, and type in cnn.com/search to go to CNN's website)
Re:No one memorizes domains anymore (Score:4, Insightful)
Yep. In order to access her yahoo mail, my girlfriend still brings up a browser with google as the home page, then types in Yahoo Mail. And she's not the only one. I die a little every time I see that.
The tech savvy people use bookmarks - or anything more complex than that. The tech illiterate people just punch in the site into a search engine, and then click on the first result. Both approaches make the approach of this company completely useless.
Re:No one memorizes domains anymore (Score:5, Insightful)
my girlfriend still brings up a browser with google as the home page, then types in Yahoo Mail. And she's not the only one. I die a little every time I see that.
It's not actually a dumb thing to do. Of course, if you have bookmarked a site, you use that. But if it's not your PC and you want a page with some degree of security -- mail, banking, Amazon, etc -- if you just type in the URL, you have the risk of making a typo and hitting a phishing site. If you type the URL into Google, the top link is usually what you intended to type, even if you made such a mistake. If the site is malware, you'll usually see indications of that in the links too.
Re: (Score:2)
I know another guy that created a NEW gmail account because he couldn't get into the old one. Turned out he was typing his password i
Re: (Score:2)
The tech savvy people use bookmarks - or anything more complex than that.
I see tech savvy people typing "Yahoo mail" into Google also. If it's your home page, you're a decent typist, you don't regularly use Yahoo mail, and your network connection is reasonable, then typing it in there, is 20% faster than opening up a bookmarks folder to find it.
Re:No one memorizes domains anymore (Score:4, Informative)
http://searchenginewatch.com/article/2051199/Facebook-Login-Fiasco-Demonstrates-Challenge-in-Competing-with-Google [searchenginewatch.com]
You're welcome.
Evil (Score:2)
What an evil, scummy corporation. BS on "startup." This a bunch of back room money men.
Wasn't this supposed to be for trademarked brands? (Score:4, Interesting)
I really hope they revise this back to its original intent of corporate brands rather than generics.
Then again, one could argue that domains have become brands rather than the other way around, e.g. "flowers.com," which has no meaning without the TLD, so I suppose you could indeed have DotFlowers for the *.flowers TLD.
Wow, this is messy.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Specific TLDs = Phisher's paradise (Score:5, Insightful)
What's wrong with just having
Re: (Score:3)
Exactly. It's not as if diversity of TLDs allows for diversity of offerings. Do you think there's competition from Google.com at Google.net or Google.info? Or (would be) at Google.search? No! The same companies are going to register the same fucking names on all TLDs. Smaller players are (possibly) going to quibble over who has rights to a given name across all TLDs, and any established company will get handed the rights to their names. In other words, this is all a bunch of hand-waving, and nothing
Re: (Score:2)
i am sorry can we go back to using ip addresses instead of this confusing stuff... preferably IPv6
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
For example, lets say there is McDonalds (the fast food joint), McDonalds (a farm) and McDonalds (a family tree website for people with the last name of McDonalds) so McDonalds the fast food might be McDonalds.com, McDonalds the farm might be McDonalds.us and McDonalds the family tree might be McDonalds.org. Otherwise you end up with stupidly long domain names (McDonaldsRestaraunt, McDonaldsFa
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
that is exactly why some registries and registry-wannabes pushed so hard for this crap (and why they've done the same for all the other extra TLDs like biz, info, travel, coop and xxx)... to get companies to register their names already existing names again and again. it's a money grab, plain and simple.
i will not participate in the complete and utter nonsense that is these custom TLDs. i'll stick with the traditional rules for TLD selection (COM = businesses, ORG = organizations, NET = network/internet ser
Re: (Score:2)
Well, if this company (startup) will take some responsibility for what it registers, than this can be a good thing. In your example, they would need to prove that they are bank and that they own bankofamerica trademark. Cert is complementary.
Not sure if this is good business though
How 1997 (Score:2)
I could see the point of this in '96-'97. Now, not so much.
Re: (Score:2)
I can't see the point at all. It's like everyone competing over a worthless chunk of land. Search engines have made domain names nearly worthless. Who the fuck cares what the domain name is?
Spammers and phishers. (Score:2)
Spammers and phishers and people trying to make a quick dollar off of renting room on the gTLD used by spammers and phishers.
Do you think whomever owns .bank will be able to tell a "real" bank from a phisher?
Or that they will even care after the real banks start informing their customers that they do NOT have a YourBankName.bank domain and not to trust anything claiming to be from them from that gTLD.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's like everyone competing over a worthless chunk of land.
We go to gain a little patch of ground ...
That hath in it no profit but the name.
To pay five ducats, five, I would not farm it
This is the imposthume of much wealth and peace,
That inward breaks, and shows no cause without
Why the man dies.
- Hamlet, IV, iv
Re: (Score:2)
Except that the scarcity is 100% artificial.
The more the better (Score:2)
The more of these garbage TLDs are registered, the more valuable becomes .com.
Purile. (Score:2)
There will be more names geared toward what consumers are looking for,' Nevett said.
Fetish
Dot Com Bubble 2.0 - pets.pets (Score:3)
Am I the only one who thinks that this GTLD craze is going a little bit too far? (Along with the repetitive coverage on Slashdot telling us every day how many applications there were)
Soon, people everywhere are going to have a tough time trying to remember if their favourite cat website's URL was whether slashdot.cat, slashdot.cats, slashdot.kitty, slashdot.kitten, etc. and whether they should go to slashdot.pets, slashdot.pound, slashdot.rescue, or slashdot.shelter to find a new animal to bring into their home.
I'm (mostly) kidding but I'm getting the same headache I usually get when somebody tries to explain to me how I should "refactor a system to be completely object-oriented because it's better".
Probably going to be just another craze that'll blow over after a couple years and everybody will go back to using the "old" TLDs like .com, .org, .net, because they "look more legitimate" (or because they're too cheap/lazy).
Re: (Score:2)
You aren't the only one. This is less useful than about any other option. I'll basically set my email servers to block receiving email from anything other than .com, .net, .org, .edu, .gov, and the country two letter codes. That's all I care about.
I've been on the internet since the 80s (yes, pre-www) and I never even thought of trying to type "foo.bank" or something lame. If we had a reputable organization come up with some good TLDs and then actually ENFORCE access to them, I'd be open to that. As it is,
ok wait (Score:2)
.con (Score:2)
Just wait until someone implements ".con", the pure phishing TLD. "Click here [www.microsoft.con] to get your latest Windows update!"
.corn (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The real value of .con would not be that it looks so similar to .com, but that it's so easy to mistype .com that way.
Besides, with a website under .con, they can always say that they warned people upfront. ~
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
logical outcome (Score:2)
Squatters. As if no one expected this.
I expect extortion for 'adult' TLDs that sound similar to commercial sites. ( like google.sex or something )
Go CompuServe (Score:2)
slash slash slash dot dot dot (Score:5, Funny)
What about the long time dream of this web site to have a .DOT domain? So that we can have:
http: slash slash slash dot dot dot
( http://slashdot.dot/ [slashdot.dot] )
So your a squatter (Score:2)
your partents must be proud that the best you can do is extort future businesses
How do GTLDs work when on a private network? (Score:3)
Can someone explain to me how GTLDs are actually supposed to work? We now have word of some 307 generic names being purchased. So what do I do to visit a TLD? Do I go to http://tickets/ [tickets] ? So what happens if someone now decides to buy a GTLD that has the same name as a computer on my network?
(Yes I know this is slashdot and I should have fully qualified domain names for all my PCs but I don't)
The average home network still uses NetBIOS names for home networking. So today we have .tickets what happens when tomorrow someone registers .firewall? They will be unreachable by typing their GTLD into the browser? As in will http://firewall/ [firewall] point to the computer called firewall, and then http://www.firewall/ [www.firewall] point to the website with too much money to spare?
Re: (Score:3)
Can someone explain to me how GTLDs are actually supposed to work?
It's http://tickets./ [tickets.] with a dot at the end.
Otherwise DNS qualification rules for dotless names apply. http://tickets/ [tickets] refers to (TICKETS).(YOURLOCALDOMAIN).
Also, Host records except nameservers aren't allowed in the root zone.
When did this stop being sleazy? (Score:3)
From the article,
"We'd be increasing the real estate on the Internet," Nevett said. "We think they're good, generic terms that will give consumers more choice and benefits."
Um, snapping up domain names to sell at a premium to someone else later is not "increasing" anything, it's a land grab in hopes that the "land" grabbed will sell for more than it cost.
When did this sort of behavior become a legitimate business plan instead of just being a sleazy attempt to squeeze money out of people that DO have business plans?
It's always good to add another layer of cost (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
scala> val filterEmail = "^([a-zA-Z0-9_.-])+@(([a-zA-Z0-9-])+.)+([a-zA-Z0-9]{2,4})+$".r
filterEmail: scala.util.matching.Regex = ^([a-zA-Z0-9_.-])+@(([a-zA-Z0-9-])+.)+([a-zA-Z0-9]{2,4})+$
scala> filterEmail.findFirstIn("example@example.co.uk").isDefined
res0: Boolean = true
Seems like he does...
But then he also accepts the .ticket domain:
scala> filterEmail.findFirstIn("example@example.ticket").isDefined
res1: Boolean = true
Lets fix his code so it does what he thinks it does:
(moved to next post becase sl
Re: (Score:2)
Version that works as intended:
scala> val filterEmail = "^([a-zA-Z0-9_.-])+@(([a-zA-Z0-9-])+\\.)+([a-zA-Z0-9]{2,4})$".r
filterEmail: scala.util.matching.Regex = ^([a-zA-Z0-9_.-])+@(([a-zA-Z0-9-])+\.)+([a-zA-Z0-9]{2,4})$
scala> filterEmail.findFirstIn("example@example.co.uk").isDefined
res2: Boolean = true
scala> filterEmail.findFirstIn("example@example.ticket").isDefined
res3: Boolean = false
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt he cares. They're pretty much just as bad.
Re: (Score:2)
It adds more domain names that people with names they want to protect from typosquatters and hostile parties will need to buy, which means more money for domain name registrars.
Plus, it increases the probability that names on a local network will clash with TLDs.
Okay, well, none of that is any good for the internet. I give up.
Re: (Score:3)