NSI Wants .banc and .shop

dakfu writes: "NSI is suggesting two new TLDs, .banc and .shop." I want .rob and .dot please. Is that too much to ask for? I think .god would be fun too, but I think there really ought to be a .sex just to help me (ummm) avoid it. Yeah. Avoid it.

oh please

Domains were never meant as the be-all-end-all of directory services. They were meant to make IP address management easier.

The current situation is just fine. NSI blew it with .com, .net, and .org, what makes anyone think they would do better with .shop?

why do we even need TLDs anymore?

What service do they really provide? are there any compelling technical reasons to keep them? And where can I get .foo and .bar?

in fact, now that I think of it, let's just let registrars register their own new TLDs from NSI, first-come, first-served...

Eric

Cross-registering $$

Is it just me or does this seem like a plan for Network Solutions and other registrars to make more money of cross-registering domains like .org, .com, and .net.

The problem is bad enough as it is, with companies registering a .com, and fearing that someone else might want to register something similar, will register the associated .org and .net addresses. Now they will also register .shop.

Does this make any sense whatsoever? Doesn't the .com TLD serve the purpose of .shop already? NSI better stop its money grabbing practices. Too many TLD's are definitely a Bad Thing (tm) for people who register domains.

This is NOT going to do anything beneficial.

1)Banks and financial institutions already have web sites. If there's a significant bank or FI that doesnt yet have a dot.com they don't deserve a .banc address.

2) to infer this scheme will somehow lessen the stress on the supply of domain names now out there is absurd. NOONE is going to give up any of the existing registered names because a .shop equivalent is available- they will just register more names in addition to the ones they have.

3) If anything, this will help the domain-squatting industry as it will rush to register EVERY common sense dictionary word/phrase and lock them up behind the internets answer to ticket scalpers, unless NSI plans to do the unthinkable and limit the number of domains a single entity can register (not bloody likely).

4) Conclusion - this is a scam, a swindle, to make bucks. I spit on it.

Actually, there's a reason for banc ...

.banc should actually be the preferred TLD for financial institutions ... there's a legal hairsplitting between 'bank' and 'banc' that dates back to the Depression and post-Crash laws that separated banks from "non-banking" financial transactions. "Bank" is used for ... er, well, banks. "Banc" is used for the non-banking financial services arm of a bank (insurance, financial consulting, equities, that sort of thing). By going with .banc, both arms of the financial institutions are covered.

As a general rule, the parent corporation of a bank is a 'Banc'. So while you bank at Bank One, for example, the parent company is Banc One Corporation.

ikaros, oh, the things you learn geeking for a financial institution ... :)

Not enough! More!

Since we are presently stuck with foobar.net/com/org, increasing this to foobar.banc/shop will increase the namespace by 5/3 N. N is of course, the current size of the namespace.

If NSI wants more money, they should make more! Change it so that any TLD is possible. Immediately, we have N-squared namespace. That's N-squared more money!

Still not enough! Enforce any two words for a TLD. foobar.dope.name. This is N cube! But why stop there? foobar.dopey.sounding.name. N to the fourth! foobar.very.very.long.name. N to the fifth!

In fact, don't have any restrictions at all. Potentially N to aleph-nought! What are you waiting for NSI! Make money now!

Not enough

This is a great way for NSI to make more money from people protecting their trademarks, but the only way to *increse* the truly available number of TLDs is to make the TLDs too numerous for anyone to desire or afford owning all permutations.

If we had 100,000 TLDs, and each cost $50, then only a huge company like McDonald's or Coke (who have a good case for exlusive Trademark protection across all industries) would even consider buying them all. But even they wouldn't need to, because the obvious one for McDonalds (.com, .food, .res, whatever) would be theirs, and they've little need to protect an oddball one like mcdonalds.xyz.

The only way to stop abuse and squatting is to dilute the value of any single TLD so that it's up to the company to make their domain stand out, rather than counting on (or worrying about) people guessing or stumbling across a domain.

The *only* solution. Allow all possible TLDs!

ICANN should allow ***anything*** to be used as a top level domain.

However, it should still require registrations to be of the form DOMAIN.TLD, i.e., both parts domain and TLD extension are both needed to constitute a single registration application.

The TLDs themselves can be registered to no one, just like no one "owns" org or com or uk.

Of course the root servers will need some custom software to deal with this. I say, use the 1st letter of the TLD to decide what nameserver ([A-Z0-9].ROOT-SERVERS.NET) gets the request. This will accomplish load balancing and should be straightforward to implement.

The benefits of the system I described here include:

(1) An end to squatting by CorpInc on corpInc.{com|net|org|cc|...} because there would now be (for all practical purposes) and infinite number op possible combinations of CorpInc.* and *.CorpInc. Even microsoft can't affort to buy up microsoft.* and *.microsoft.

(2) An end to domain hoarders in general. With unlimited variations, no one domain name is all that important. Thus they lose their resaleable value.

(3) Space for similarly named companies to all happily coexist. apple.computers, apple.records, apple.farms, apple.employment, john.apple, the-big.apple, etc. No need to sue for limited domain name since they're no longer a limited resource.

Other possibility is to allow the full Unicide character set in domain names.

Thoughts?

Re:Why not add TLDs that people really wany?

Name.Space [xs2.net], the leading pioneer and advocate of new generic toplevel domains (gTLDs) in operation since 1996 has hard data on what new TLDs are popular and in demand by people on the net at large.

In 1996, Name.Space [xs2.net] began accepting suggestions for new gTLDs from public input, and has moderated the list to the present number of 549, from thousands of requests. These gTLDs came into operation between the autumn of 1996 and the present and are currently available for registration.
Register here! [name-space.com]

Here are the top 20 new gTLDs suggested by the public and presently in operation by Name.Space [xs2.net]:

web .
space.
shop.
art.
sex.
info.
zone.
music.
firm.
design.
media.
travel.
online.
arts.
inc.
x.
mail.
home.
family.
2000.
bank.
usa.
news.
ltd.
world.
fuck.
mag.
corp.
direct.
law.
free.
love.
auction.
sale.
casino.
service.
games.
fun.
mall.
studios.
cam.
market.
asia.
sports.
cafe.
mad.
internet.
hacker.
city.
network.

see Vote for new gTLDs [global-namespace.net]
and Name.Space active gTLDs [xs2.net].

In an early effort to gain the global recognition of the new gTLDs serviced by Name.Space [xs2.net], a letter was sent to Network Solutions on March 11, 1997 requesting the addition of the gTLDs serviced by Name.Space [xs2.net] and their associated nameservers into the ROOT.ZONE file (the recognized master list of globally-routed TLDs, controlled by NSI).

NSI refused the request to amend the ROOT.ZONE file and Name.Space [xs2.net] subsequently filed an ANTITRUST [xs2.net] action against NSI on March 20, 1997.

After more than three years of litigation, the Court of Appeals ruled against Name.Space [xs2.net] and in favor of NSI, granting NSI IMMUNITY from antitrust prosecution, for their "conduct in this case". The court's decision was an obvious POLITICAL decision, not a legal one. (see http://namespace.org/law [namespace.org])

In the original complaint, Name.Space [xs2.net] also listed a group of "non-party co-conspirators", many of whom, or their associates now make up ICANN and the key influential persons surrounding the ICANN process and formerly known as the IAHC (International Ad Hoc Committee) at the time the initial lawsuit was filed in March, 1997.

Now that NSI has been declared IMMUNE from antitrust prosecution for refusing to allow competitors, including Name.Space [xs2.net], to add new TLDs to the root, NSI presents the addition of new TLDs as if it was their idea in the first place--in light of the fact that Name.Space [xs2.net] and others were denied precisely what NSI is carving out for themselves.

Why did James Tierney [mailto] close down the DoJ's antitrust investigation into NSI and their parent company SAIC without finding any wrongdoing? Perhaps you should all write to Mr. Tierney at the DoJ and ask why the US Government is protecting NSI, while crusading against Microsoft? Is this another case of "selective enforcement"? Who is benefiting financially from all of this? Why is there no oversight into conflicts of interest within ICANN? How did NSI get away with paying public relations "flacks" and other "shills" to disrupt, discredit, and coerce their competitors such as Name.Space, with such impunity?

The addition of new gTLDs to the root is a matter of a simple TEXT EDIT of the ROOT.ZONE [xs2.net] file. Isn't it about time that this be done without further delay? Get a head start--if you are an ISP you can run the expanded ROOT.ZONE [xs2.net] file today by downloading it and installing it on your DNS servers. For more info, see go to Switch to Name.Space [xs2.net]

Re:Actually, there's a reason for banc ...

But the Glass Steagal Act has been repealed and there is no longer a legal requirement in the US that prohibits banks from carrying out all types of financial transactions.