Slashdot Log In
New TLDs On The Way From ICANN
Posted by
Hemos
on Wed Jun 14, 2000 09:15 PM
from the giving-birth-to-new-domains dept.
from the giving-birth-to-new-domains dept.
ChrisBennett writes: "ICANN has just suggested a policy for introducing new Top Level Domains. This policy will be considered at the ICANN meeting on July 15-16, 2000 in Yokohama, Japan. I guess we'll be seeing the .rob and .dot TLDs that CmdrTaco wanted after all."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
New TLDs On The Way from ICANN
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 157 comments
(Spill at 50!) | Index Only
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
What purpose would they serve? (Score:3)
more than what we have.... for example, why would
we need
get a
couldn't say
in their browser window..
Database of proposed "New *TLDs", mailing list. (Score:3)
First off, I hate to break the bad news to everyone, but that Great New *TLD that just popped into your head? It's been thought of before. By lots of people.
New *TLDs are nothing new, and indeed have been being debated, tossed around, fought over, proposed, implemented, and torn down for the better part of the last decade or so.
CmdrTaco didn't think of .god, .dot, and probably not even .rob. Neither did you, most likely. :)
For a listing of proposed *TLDs and their status, see http://www.earth-net.net/GTLD/database. html [earth-net.net] (gzipped text file)
Pay particular attention to Field 2, Root Server Providers. Check out the Open Root Server Confederation [open-rsc.org].
While we're on this subject, a quick redux to the .god TLD... zone files and current status of .god registry [pccf.net].
ANYONE interested in domain policy (and the politics are Quite Interesting in this realm... surf the domain-policy mailing list archives [internic.net] (hosted by InterNIC).
Re:.sex OR .xxx (Score:3)
I myself would propose this TLD for adult sites:
If I were the ITU-TSS I would strongly suggest they hold a conference in conjunction with ICANN to finalize the new TLD names as soon as possible.
Re:They forgot two current TLDs - .invalid and .uu (Score:3)
(Links to the Jargon File provided for you kids who don't remember what it was like in the old days, when we had to carve email messages on clay tablets and haul them to the server room, two miles away in the snow, uphill both ways....)
--
Multilingual Domain Names (Score:3)
Re:What purpose would they serve? (Score:3)
Requiring porn sites to use ".xxx" or ".porn" or some such would allow a quick way to prevent children from seeing porn sites; much better than the "net nanny" crap.
.MP3 ? (Score:3)
What a waste (Score:3)
However, what really is the purpose of
"Hey, my favorite website doesn't work!"
"Did you make sure to type in
"Oh. It works."
The panel itself may be a good idea, if only to restrict frivolous TLDs.
What's the point? (Score:3)
The original TLD's were probably a pretty good idea once upon a time, but now, everyone knows that things on the Internet starts in www and ends in .com. (barely better than the people who ask if you have a "screen name" rather than an e-mail address). Everything except .edu and .gov are so polluted as to be meaningless. Look where we right now...slashdot.ORG? Why? Or perhaps my college, which has registered not only mit.edu, but also mit.com, mit.net and mit.org
If it weren't for the incredible mess it would create, I would suggest that we abandon TLDs altogether. I always spell .com wrong anyway...
Re:.qb TLD (Score:3)
Yes, then the International Association for Dyslexic People could register dp.qb
None of them would *ever* find it.
The regular
Like USENET, DNS needs a ".alt" top level domain. (Score:3)
DNS needs a ".alt" top level domain.
When the Big 7 newsgroups were being drafted on USENET just prior to the great flag day, this simple need was recognized practically from day one and .alt was born (and is today bigger than all the Big 7 groups combined).
Flame all you want, but without a dumping ground where anything goes without restrictions, the trash will not go away. It will seep into all areas of the "approved TLDs".
If an .alt TLD is set up, it will make rule violations in the remaining TLDs much easier to enforce because there will always be an alternative. "You didn't have to create [domain] here".
Trap the rats with no way to register their profane, controversial, questionable, or whatever-offends-whoever domains and they'll start clawing at the walls of whatever other heirarchy they can get at.
Remember, in the Big 7 newsgroups, there was no room for sex or drugs, so these because the very first two alt groups.
Even the cleanest, most orderly city still has a garbage dump.
News at 11: ICANN turn DNS into WINS!!! (Score:4)
Jesus wept. Just when I think they can't get any dumber!
They are going to turn DNS into WINS. From a heirarchical naming system into a flat naming system. They must be stopped!
The ICANN / Registrar DNS diatribe [freeserve.co.uk]
When Hell Freezes Over (Score:4)
And let's face it: all so-called corporate names will be immediately obtained and/or sued-for by their so-called owners; and all remaining sensible names will be immediately obtained and camped-on by the domain name resellers.
You and I, who may have need for a website six months from now, are *ALWAYS* going to be screwed: the name we'd have used is gone.
And even if you do manage to get the DNS you wanted -- www.borsht.??? -- who the hell's ever going to find it? www.borsht.com is gone (to a domain name camping asshole, of course), and who's ever going to have patience to try
The ONLY solution is to bag this silly-ass naming system and come up with something that allows people to type in a more unique, descriptive name that isn't duplicated umpteen times over with the most minor of variations...
Rant, roar.
www.borsht.com for sale. My god.
--
The Wrong Answer to the Wrong Problem (Score:4)
Here is why it is the wrong answer: It won't work. Right now, companies (and squatters) register foo.com, foo.net, and foo.org, "just to make sure" they have all the bases covered. All this is going to do is make Network Solutions and the other registrars more money.
The real problem is that everybody is trying to map a virtually infinite number of items (i.e., the known universe, as far as the Internet is concerned) into a limited namespace (English words and phrases less then 64 characters long). Anyone with half a brain can tell you that is a solution that is inherently unscalable.
The only way to make a system like this scalable is to switch to a hierarchical system. Just like you don't put every file (or directory) on a system under
There are two hierarchies I can think of: By category, and by location.
By category would mean that instead of microsoft.com, we would get microsoft.software.computers.com or something. Basically, use a Yahoo!(TM)-style structure to structure the Domain Name System.
There are three problems with this approach that make it unworkable. First, who gets to decide the categories, and what category a given site falls under? Is this slashdot.talk.org or slashdot.computers.com or slashdot.geeks.culture.rec.com or what?
Second, the administrative overhead of all this sorting would be prohibitively high. Registering a domain should not require a six-month background check.
Third, and most importantly, you can still have name collisions in a particular field, so long as they are geographically seperated. There must be an "Atlas Auto Body" in every county in New Hampshire. So who gets atlas.bodyshops.auto.com?
No, the only method that will scale with reality is to model the DNS after reality: Physical location. There are already existing mechanisms to make sure there aren't two Atlas Auto Body shops in Concord, NH. So make the domain atlasautobody.concord.nh.us, and the problem is solved.
Yes, it does mean Microsoft would be microsoft.redmond.wa.us. But such is life. People already remember names, addresses, phone numbers, and other things with much less sense then this.
Not coincidentally, the mechanism to do this is already in place. Just nobody uses it.
My solution? Don't add new TLDs. In fact, don't add new 2LD (Second Level Domains) either. No more new
Against .protest (Score:4)
Imagine, a
The move toward more TLDs is a good thing. We just need to be sure that we don't make it too easy to filter out "undesirable" speech.
-Chris
Re:What purpose would they serve? (Score:4)
As soon as you start limiting what content can be put on each domain, the internet as we know it is gone.
LL
That's funny... (Score:4)
They made a similar thing in Brazil... Only worse. (Score:4)
Some years ago here in Brazil the only ones that could register a domain name were companies (and they had to prove they were companies). Regular people also wanted to register domains, as Internet was gaining popularity and personal websites becoming common. So they started complaining, and the powers that be [cg.org.br] decided to create new Brazilian TLDs just for regular people.
They were so wise that they had a brilliant idea. To create various TLD's, each one for an occupation. So far so good. In a demonstration of their wisdom, they keenly chose 23 occupations as deserving a TLD. Some of them:
Obviously people just ignored these ridiculous TLDs and continued registering
Amazing, isn't it ?
Who decides what belongs there? (Score:5)
It wouldn't work. It would just create more and more arguments.
--
Mixed bag (Score:5)
Well, we keep hearing the same refrain of "slow and controlled manner" that we have for the past decade. If this gets any more slow and controlled we could all be dead before the next TLD is born.
But seriously, why the emphasis on keeping domaind artificially scarce? The argument they keep discussing is one of needing to protect valuable marks, but that is only necessary when a limited number of domains are available. If you can register any 3-letter combination as a TLD (minus a few restricted ones?), you have just made it financally prohibitive for anyone with even a huge bankroll to do any domain squatting.
It is only by making domains scarce that they become individually valuable or threatening -- make them plentiful and it's up to the company to bring the value to the name (rather than vice-versa: the "roulette wheel" theory of domain registration - pick the right one and you're rich!)
At least they sort of tangentially talk about this when asking about differentiation. Why the hell should ICANN be concerned about differentiation? When companies are paying 50 grand to come up with names like Agilent and Agilant within 12 months of each other, why should ICANN be looking out for corporate identity differentiation? Bury us in 999 TLDs and maybe Agilent and Agilant can differentiate themselves with the extra three letters...
I find this amusing... (Score:5)
"aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot slash dot slash slash".
.sex OR .xxx (Score:5)
Finally... (Score:5)
"Last night I loaded up one of those trashy .com sites. You know, just for the articles." *snicker*
"I think freedom of speech is fine, so long as my children don't get exposed to any of those .com sites."
Other useful ones might be .info (public information servers), .ent (entertainment, also easily corruptible), and .dotcom (cheesy internet scams)
--