Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
The Internet

NSI Wants .banc and .shop 172

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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

NSI Wants .banc and .shop

Comments Filter:
  • O.K, so i get the idea behind .shop, but shouldn't the second one be .bank? Oh, and .sex (Or .xxx) is a good idea too btw ;)
  • by kwsNI ( 133721 )
    I like .rob.

    How about:

    And of course, I want to register or maybe just set up a sub-domain


  • There are thousands of hospitals on the Internet, and they are randomly distributed throughout the .edu .com .org and (more recently) .md domains.

    We need .MED for the medical/industrial complex!

  • by mindstrm ( 20013 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @11:31AM (#1118285)
    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?
  • i'd like to register the 1st level domain i want!

  • by Adhoc ( 132137 )
    Why do they want to mispell bank?
  • how useful all these extra tld's would be if people would use them properly in the first place. Feh. More tlds == More $ for the registrars, as every company known to man fights to register their trademarks under all tlds available.

    Feh I say, Feh.

  • well, I don't think that these .sex and .xxx and so on would be a good idea, it would be much easier to add filters to just block out stuff from .sex or .xxx, how are we supposed to get our porn?!?!?!
  • Why banc instead of bank?

    Us foreigners have just about gotten used to all the internet names being in [American] English only, that this seems strange?

    Micro$oft Word suggests 'ban' as a replacement for 'banc' :-)

  • by Schemer ( 717 )
    imagine how hard it would be tell people how to get to ./ if it was


  • 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...

  • by zavyman ( 32136 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @11:38AM (#1118293)
    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.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Why did you misspell "misspell?"
  • There needs to be a rule about companies owning the same name in multiple heirarchies. There doesn't need to be a,,,,, and a foo.banc. A company with the name of Foo Inc. should be only.

    Unless there is some kind of rule like this, then there will not really be that many additional names available to people, but the registrars will make more money.

  • More TLDs would make sense if we took that opportunity to fix the mess that it's become. Make it so that you can only purchase a domain name in the TLD that is applicable, and make it so that trademarks, etc, only apply to the TLD to which you are ABLE to apply.

    I mean, sure, is fine, but they shouldn't have, .org, .sex, .bank, .anyotherretardedshit
  • Why stop there? Why not allow companies to register part of their company names as tld's?

    That way, coca.cola and pepsi.cola can sue each other for the use of .cola as a trademark...

    And then, the MPAA and RIAA can start feeding off of themselves, much like the French Revolution did...
  • Of course they can also be combined: bank.rob comes to mind.
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Actually, it's for blocking purposes that I'd like to see such a TLD. Yes it would be easier to block. So much so, that *we* as adults (or parents) can make the conscious decision ourselves, and not have to depend on nazi filter companies. (It would/should much simplify putting the control in the hands of parents/individuals.)

    Individuals certainly have a right to block. Companies do as well (it's their bandwidth, their time). ISPs would (should) not.

    The only sticky situation would be public libraries. Should they block or not? I think they should if the computer is accessible to or viewable by children. Of course, there should be uncensored terminals available to adults.

    Back on topic... I want a .sex so there's a one line block in my junkbuster config instead of having to add a single domain each time I (or my family) have the misfortune of running into porn.
  • I can only think that 'banc' sounds more 'cyber' than 'bank'. I'd prefer 'banq' to 'banc', at least it makes more sense phonetically.
  • don't forget ralph nader's suggestion [], .sucks.
  • For ".banc," NSI recommends that a "core group" of global banking industry representatives be appointed as registry gatekeepers.

    World Trade Organisation protestors and conspiracy theorists everywhere are likely to love this...

    I can understand the country domains: presumably the government of the country is in some whay responsible.

    I could understand domains for large NGOs like the United Nations.

    But this suggestion seems to be a recipe for disaster. Next thing everybody will want to register their own top-level domains. Can I have .allan?

    The UK have already tried someting similar with and for the two main company types here. This arrangement is a complete failure: everybody registers .com (for example []) and if that is unavailable

    The suggestion here will also fail, for the same reasons.

  • Every corp in existance will just register their name/trademark/whatever else they're known by under every TLD anyway. Just like they do now with .com, .net, and .org. We're just going to have an even bigger mess.

  • magine how hard it would be tell people how to get to ./ if it was

    I think what he has in mind is: []

    Now that would be cool!

    Jay (=
  • Oh what great fun these TLDs will be. Imagine taking your free Kmart Internet access and trying to visit

    Heck maybe we can have another big fight between and not to mention the poor sucker who rushes to get the genric

    We're all doomed. Feh.

  • They could've lobbied for worse!
    • .goat
    • .gravy
    • .midget
    • .:)
    • .dot
    • ..
    • .-.-. --- --
    • .o-matic
  • If Micros*ft registers, do you think IE will start automatically completing words in the URL field to .shop domains as well, or not? Personally, I doubt it pretty seriously. What if there is the same name in the .shop and the .com domain? Which one will display? What about Netscape? What does anyone else think?

  • I'd like to see a ".the" I just think Tha'd be cool.

    p.s.Very sorry to any one who read this looking for something witty and/or funny

  • Well thats it I want .geek and .no ( like in no you cant come in here)
  • by dougman ( 908 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @11:48AM (#1118310)
    1)Banks and financial institutions already have web sites. If there's a significant bank or FI that doesnt yet have a 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.

  • Part of the problem with the current system is that companies get names under as many TLD's as possible. What if we created "regional TLD's", with the stipulation that the company be within an appropriate region. This is based along the idea for the local newsgroups in the Champaign-Urbana area of Illinois. All the local newsgroups are of the form cmi.*, with cmi being the local airport code. Under this system, a local business, say Bob's Bike Store (fictional) could have the domain bobsbikes.cmi, whereas someone else could have bobsbikes.lax, bobsbikes.ord, etc...

    Granted, this would take a bit more work and oversight than the current system uses, but perhaps part of the workload could be taken on by local ISP's.


    Disclaimer: This has not been thought out in great detail by me, since I'm not an expert on such matters, but I think it might work.
  • .porn, Just face up to the fact that it makes up a substantial portion of the 'Net and give it its own domain. Hell, I'd be surprised if porn wasn't one of the first three things put on the DARPAnet right after work and games. Plus it'd make things easier on those dumbass censors who think that $29.95 over-the-counter, shrinkwrapped solution from CompUSA can make up for years of shoddy parenting. But, I digress...
  • Why do they want to mispell bank?

    Five years from now, they can make a .bank and everyone who has a .banc will need to register the .bank
  • You mean, like [] instead of
  • The more Top Level Domains the better. While its true that yahoo and microsoft will grab (if some site for impotence fettishes dosen't) and a proliferation of TLDs will mean that most businesses will bwe less likely to do this. So Don't stop at two new ones. And while where at it here's a grand idea, a person or business can register a TLD 5-15 characters in length long. Microsoft would jump at this. Although I don't know if Windows 2000 is stable enough to be the . in .microsoft. When IPv6 becomes the new standard where gonna need the TLDs anyway. Imagine the commercials: Sun, we put the dot in .playboy, .ecommerce .sunmicrosystems ....
  • With any luck, it'll kill that inane practice, but more likely it'll keep doing .com.

  • Wouldn't it be banc.rob? NSI doesn't know how to spell bank correctly.

  • You are a seriously disturbed person who should seek help. Boy talk about the pot and the freaking kettle
  • oh please, what's the problem with porn, anyway?

  • Rob has joked about these TLDs helping him avoid porn, etc. The implication being that, actually, they would make it easier to find. I agree that this is the case.

    What I don't understand is this: when such a TLD scheme would make porn easier to find for people who want to find it, and easier to avoid for people who want to avoid it, why not have it?

    People get upset about censorship, and show how external efforts to "protect" people from certain things will always fail. I agree that they fail miserably. They fail because they are effected by people other than those who want to be "protected," like some software vendor generating an endless list of keywords, for example, or blocking access to entire sites (like just because some of the pages contain links to porn. Instead of external compulsion, how about some internal regulation by the porn industry itself? Why not move to a top level domain like .xxx or .sex?

    I agree with derogatory comments about external agencies "protecting people from themselves," but the folks who get lost in the argument are those who actually, actively want to protect themselves (instead of being protected). What if I really don't want to see porn online? What if I'm offended by it? A TLD and some self-regulation by the industry would make it easier for me to avoid. On the other hand, it would make it that much easier to find for those who want to, as well.

    I guess I'm not sure what's wrong with the plan unless we think it's a "good thing" for people (kids or otherwise) who think they're going to NASA's or the Whitehouse's site to be greeted by frolicking, naked, variously engaged women and faceless men. I, for one, absoultely support such a TLD scheme because it accomplishes three things:

    (1) makes it easy for those who want to avoid to avoid,
    (2) makes it easy to find for those who want to find, and
    (3) puts an end to the endless accidental porn sightings we all experience unwittingly.

    Bring on the .sex TLD!!!
  • How about installing a real directory service and doing away with NSI and the other registrars alltogether?
  • How about some really cool TLD's that we can all use? Let's lobby for some that apply to us, such as:

    Of course, if we can have 5 letter TLD's too now:

    .linux (Well, it has to go on the list, this is Slashdot ;) )

    Mailto: kristian@vanders.geek :)
  • NSI "urged ICANN to designate two new proof of concept" top-level domains right away to avoid 'months or even years spent in further analysis, debate about abstract criteria, and lengthy, complex and contentious procedures and negotiations.'"

    I don't know... I don't really see the .com name crush as being one of the pressing social woes of our time. It sounds like NSI has something up its sleeve...

    NSI "that a 'sunrise period' be enacted to allow 'certain trademark holders' the right to register their marks in the new domains."

    Looks like the people who think this is just a way to make more money from cross-registering have something here. That NSI thinks the sunrise period will be used indicates that they believe everyone who currently has a .com will want a .shop/.banc address. That they're offering it indicates that they're getting some nice benefts from said .com owners (otherwise, they could just open it up for the squatters to gobble). Nor do I see any great benefit to the rest of us... does anyone really believe that (say) NationsBank(TM) will give up just because then can get nationsbank.banc?

    (well, maybe if they think they can sue whoever buys it next)

    - Michael Cohn

    The bad do bad because the bad is rewarded. The good do good because the good is rewarded.
  • ...because everyone knows that:

    1. Company foo will not only buy,, and, but now also,, and or whatever else they come up with. This really won't increase the namespace.
    2. The average person will just be confused again. "Naw, that ain't a web site... It don't got no .com on the end!"

    I remember when I saw a URL on a flier at school. It was in the form http://domain/ --- no "www" at the front. One girl said, "Of course that's not a web page, stupid. There's no 'www'!" The other replied, "No, they don't make you do that any more."


  • maybe, but there are three slashes in the url right now, so three dots give a nice symmetry :)
    • .grits
    • .troll
    • .wtf
    • .kharma
    And some I'd like to see instead of .xxx:
    • .spooge
    • .jiz
    • .fisting
    • .shaved


  • Like... too little, too late.

    If they'd done this, together with some reasonable rules for how many domains one company could register, before this mess got bad, it would have been good. Now it'll just make everything even worse.

  • by ikaros ( 116206 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @11:56AM (#1118328) Homepage

    .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 ... :)

  • It is a scam, but the only people who will fall for it are people who deserve to be bled of their excess cash anyway.

    I mean, really, it's brilliant - NSI can ring a bell, and overnight charges in the millions will ring up on every domain squatter's balance sheet. If they keep it up, after another year or two all the domain squatters will be broke, their domains will expire, and we'll all be *much* happier.

  • imagine how hard it would be tell people how to get to ./ if it was

    I don't know what you currently do, but I always say ", ess-ell-ay-ess-aitch-dee-oh-tee dot oh-are-gee" and it shouldn't be any harder for or or or
  • The slashes are already there, so we could just have


    And of course the dot is also there, so our favourite web site could be at

    Now that would be way cool!

    (This is getting silly...)

  • Surprise (to me, at least): Slashdot.Com now resolves to Slashdot. Andover must have bought the name from the prior owner.

  • Even better would be a TLD of ".", not "dot", just ".".
    Then, they would need to allow non alphanumericdash characters in domain names such as a "/". Then you could simply have:

    http:///. []

    Not only would it look cool, but only the true techies would even be able to find it!
  • by (void*) ( 113680 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @12:03PM (#1118334)
    Since we are presently stuck with, 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. This is N cube! But why stop there? N to the fourth! 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!

  • I'm getting flashbacks to my Amstrad 6128 days, when games came on disks, discs, disqs, or even disques!
  • If you had some capabilities of intelligent thought you might arrive at the conclusion that everyone might not want to see porn. I dont. So if I dont want to see porn, I want to be able to block everything from .sex or .xxx or whatever, and that way not have to run into it one way or another (which you sometimes do, no matter how you try to avoid it).

    The point of having a .sex is that you can choose whether you want it or not. I dont, you do. Fine for everyone. Plus you'll know exactly where to look when you wanna exercise your right hand.

  • I predict that this issue won't be settled for a long, long time. IMHO an appropritate analogy is the UN and the Security Council. Most people agree that we need to change the rules for who gets to be on it but no one agrees on exactly how it's to be done or who gets to join. Therefore, the system that was put in place by the victors of WWII will remain in place for the forseeable future.

    By the same token, it looks like the top-level structure that's been in place since the days of ARPA and the RFC process will remain, since no one seems to be able to take leadership and create a workable consensus. Therefore, all the discussion taking place will almost certainly be for nought, and the current system will prevail. Hopefully, that won't be such a bad thing after all.

  • by Ermit ( 27328 )
    > Why do they want to mispell bank?

    Just a guess, but many languages (other than english) spell bank with a c..

    The article on says "For '.banc,' NSI recommends that a 'core group' of global banking industry representatives be appointed as registry gatekeepers."

    Perhaps they're trying to be politically/internationally correct

  • Well thats it I want .geek and .no

    .no is the tld for Norway.
  • .fart?

    (hoping somebody catches the SNL reference...)
  • Ah, well now i'm asuming that this is an American only thing. To be honest, i've never even seen/heard the word "Banc" before today, and i'm guesing it's a bit obscure for average Joe to get. Add the fact that the Internet is international, i would still think .bank would make more sense...
  • H-T-T-P-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot :)

    Chris Hagar
  • "H-T-T-P-colon-slash-slash-slash-dot-dot-dot"

    It's morse code for OS. Hey, it's a new kind of subliminal message ;-)

  • Actually there is yet another TLD in the works for that, .inc, which is 'possed to be _only_ for those who are Incorporated with that name.
  • In order for .xxx or .sex (which I agree with, BTW) to work, all current adult sites would have to be offered their existing .com names in the new TLD. This would have to replace their .com names and those could then be deleted and the ones that aren't specifically "porn names" could then be put back into the pool.

    There would then have to be some law against using a .com address for adult material. (I'm sure that won't fly!) The law would also have to prohibit domain pointing or meta-refreshing to a .sex or .xxx domain. (Once again, not gonna fly.)

    IF all this were to fly, the adult sites would still find loopholes so that they could get users to their .xxx or .sex via a .org or .com TLD.

    One REALLY cool "side effect" of this could be that search engines could be configured NOT to return .xxx or .sex sites when searching. This would allow for more accurate searches. Who isn't tired of getting stuff like "GENNIFER FLOWERS NAKED!!!!!!!!!" when trying to find a place to order flowers online?

    I'm not for censorship, but I really hate how every link on the web only has 6 degrees of separaion from a porn site. When I want porn, I'll go get it (I'm no prude), I just don't like it being pushed at me all day long. (I've gotta get some work done sometime!)

  • it would be much easier to add filters to just block out stuff from .sex or .xxx, how are we supposed to get our porn?
    Uhm. I think we can put them on, say, .shop or .banc.
  • My opinion is we need ALOT more TLDs. Right now you have companies suing everybody else over trade marks in the .com since there can be only one, it's a very valuable commodity. You throw out a bunch of focused domains like .banc, .shop, .sex, .xxx, .inc, etc it becomes less vaulable and maybe we'll get rid of most of the domain speculation and "domain squatting" lawsuits.


  • "screw it! go to H-T-T-P-colon-shash-slash-three-five-two-zero-zero -six-one-four-eight-zero!"
  • by drwiii ( 434 )
    Forget the .rob TLD, just register "rob.banc" and "" when they become available. Much better play on words.
  • Good point... might be better with a .xxx to have the "porn" sites on. (Where to draw the line might be a small problem but i doubt it'd be too hard).
  • by Skinka ( 15767 )
    I think would be a really cool URL.


    And you thought was impossible to pronounce..

  • Even better would be a TLD of ".", not "dot", just ".".

    There already is -- this is the dot _after_ TLD (traditionally omitted, but is still there).

  • http://www.clownpenis.fart
  • And, if they create .dash, we could have and other Morse code! Or, I suppose, that could just be .dash.
  • Exactly...
    The reason the trademark interests are so
    worried about new TLDs is because they are used
    to being forced to litigate over .com .org
    and .net, which have no reference to industrial
    specialization. is the only
    choice for McDonald's Food Corp, and for
    McDonald's Plumbing and for old McDonald's Farm.
    With a .farm, .food, and .services TLDs,
    McDonald's Food Corp would have
    no worries about trademark confusion with the
    others. This is obvious. Two more domains
    isn't going to do it.. ICANN's working Group C
    has suggested introducing 7-10 initially
    and then expanding. This is closer to the right

    Unfortunately, Roger Cochetti (a NSI exec
    and ICANN DNSO member) feels he has the authority
    to completely bypass the "months or even years
    spent in further analysis, debate about abstract criteria, and lengthy, complex and contentious
    procedures and negotiations" which were mandated
    by ICANN. ICANN is now very clearly showing it's
    true colors. NSI should not be able to just step
    in and choose new TLDs just because it finds the
    ICANN rules inconvenient. What gives NSI this right? What denies everyone else this right?
    Legally, NSI has no more claim on making new
    TLDs than Rob Malda, and their proposal should
    have just as much validity as his .dot and .rob
    (ie: none at all). The difference is that they
    have planted Cochetti on the Names Council, and
    Slashdot hasn't. This isn't democracy, folks...
  • Why stop? Why not have as many root-level domains as possible? It is technically feasible, is it not? I care not a whit if it costs people money. Everything costs money.

    As a matter of fact, although RealNames sucks like Manchester United, why not just get rid of any sort of significance to the root levels and allow sentence-like-structures. Web sites could be full words separated like dots like some email addresses.

    So "rob.eats.pooh" would not be owned, necessarily, by the same people who own "winne.the.pooh."

    [I'm sure I'm about to hear from a) Manchester United fans: I love you blokes. Please lighten up and tell the boys to stop mucking about, b), some technical wizard who will have 16 good reasons my plan is not feasible and will be happy to trade email for a week about it]

  • ... and do something that will eliminate the artifical scarcity of second level domains? Doing something to address this is tough, but so is splitting up an area code; it's done becasue in the end the health of the system requires it.

    Every dictionary word in the .com tld been taken up, if not by a real business, by a squatter. Adding one or two isn't going to help. It may be good for NSI, but it's not good for the net. Right now, people just go out and register .net/.com/.org in parallel anyhow. Why make the situation worse by adding a limited number of new TLDs?

    I see four alternatives for reducing scarcity of second level domain words.

    1) Register domain names regionally.

    Simply get rid of .com, .org and .net and make people register like this: IBM.COM --> Bound to be unpopular though, but hey, we live with phone numbers, which are much more unfriendly. The system as it is now is not scaled to the kind of phone number volume problem it has.

    2) Create a second layer of several hundred, if not several thousand domains under the TLDs and make people register at the third tier.


    People who didn't bother to re-register would get bumped under a standard catch all


    3) Add a very large number of new TLDs, say the top thousand most common dictionary words in the top ten countries by internet usage.

    Then --> {, amazon.books,, amazon.auctions}. IBM.COM --> {ibm.hardware,, ibm.government}.

    4) Keep the limited number of TLDs, but make registering multiple ones increasingly expensive. E.G. charge a tax of (N-1)*10^(N-1) dollars for N domains. If you had two domains, you'd pay ten bucks.

    So 1 domain: 0 bucks; 2 domains: 10 bucks. 3 domains: 200 bucks; 4 domains: 3000 bucks; 5 domains: 40,000 bucks; 6 domains: 500,000 bucks, 7 domains: 6 million bucks.

    The fact is, people register way more second level domains than they really need. An exponential tax would keep it affordable to maintain a reasonable number of domains, but possible to register more if there is business justification. Practically anybody registering more than four domains is squatting or underutilizing some of them.

    Every freaking business consultant is recommending preemptive domain regitration based on the fact you might want to use it some day. Even my company does this -- because it's rational. It's the tragedy of the commons, because the benefit my company gets outweighs our share of the cost to the community at large. If you think about it, why not screw your competitors by taking up all the valuable domain name space in your industry?

  • This is all so stupid. Adding more TLDs is like building more roads. It just doesn't alleviate the problem.

    .banc is totally masturbatory on the part of NSI. They should add .nic while they're at it. You know, since we've all seen this *overwhelming* demand for bank domain names.

    If they want to add something useful, I like .ego. (Not my idea -- I'm sorry that I can't remember who to credit it to.) I honestly believe that a .ego TLD for personal websites is a fantastic idea. Hell, I don't want Waldo.Net []. I'm not a network. I want Waldo.Ego [waldo.ego].

    I don't know how you'd go about making sure that businesses didn't get 'em, and I'd like to hope that it would be permissable to get ibm.ego, coke.ego, etc.

    Short of a .ego TLD, though, I just don't think that new TLDs are a good idea. .web is *definitely* the stupidest that I've ever heard of. It would have been a good idea in '92 or '93, but not now. To most people, Internet == WWW.

    To all of those that have said that this is a move on NSIs part, I offer a hearty 'Hell Yeah!'

  • Instead of a few lame names like .shop and .banc the best solution would be to find a way to let people add TLDs that they really want, while keeping some kind of limit on the number of new TLDs. One way to limit it would be to charge a high price. I think there is a way to do this while still keeping it possible for groups of individuals without a centralized budget to create new TLDs.

    My suggestion: let anyone pre-register a name under an arbitrary TLD and give their credit card number. It will be verified but not charged. If more than, say, 150 names under the same new TLD are pre-registered the TLD is created, any preregistered names are created under the new TLD and the credit cards are billed.

    If you want a new TLD (.linux for example) you can organize a campaign to get 150 people to preregister names under the proposed TLD. Of course, someone with enough money can register all 150 names by themselves - but they will not own the new TLD, anyone can register names under it afterwards.

    I believe that technically the root domain should be able to handle a large number of TLDs.


  • What if we created "regional TLD's", with the stipulation that the company be within an appropriate region.

    These already exist, though I'm not sure of the way to go about getting an address in one. The reason they never caught on is because they're really long, comparatively. Would you rather have, or Schools them, though. My school's website, though I doubt anyone would be interested in it, is

    Note: I'm not sure if it's currently divided up by city/region, but I know there's state ones. The Massacusetts state website, for example is Guess what the state sites for CA, OH, NE, and AK are?

  • by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <> on Friday April 21, 2000 @01:52PM (#1118378) Homepage
    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

    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.
  • Ahem!

    How about:

    Hey Rob, Thanks for that tarball!

  • .NSIprofits
  • A .med domain sounds cool, but it brings up the issue of policing apropriate domain choice. Who will decide what does and doesn't belong? Sure, it wouldn't take much to say that porn sites don't deserve a .med, but if there is the power to prevent it, I could see some grey areas showing up.

    Should homeopathic or naturapathic web sites be .meds? What about AIDS dissidents? (people who loudly insist that HIV and AIDS are unrelated and AIDS is not sexually transmitted) I certainly don't have all the answers (or even all the questions), but I would want a .med domain to be a source of dependable information - on the other hand, I'd like dependable information on naturapathy too, and wouldn't want to see everything outside of the narrow veiw of "real medicine" excluded.

    Just some thoughts.

    -Kahuna Burger

  • If we're in the mood to totally revamp the TLD scheme, then the first priority should be to fix up the .gov and .mil TLDs.

    The .gov TLD seems to apply to only US governmental addresses. Why should go to the US Senate. Why not the Canadian Senate, the Slovenian Senate (if they indeed have one) or any other nation that has a Senate?

    This is totally against the whole 'international' movement of the Internet. People like Al I-created-the-word-Internet Gore are always talking about how the Internet is such an international thing - not in this case!

    The .gov and .mil TLDs should be restructured so that no one uses straight .gov and .mil, but all nations use (for the UK), (for Canada), or (as it should be). The fact that goes to the US Senate page is a total bias against all other governments, and is nothing more than a grasp by the US Governement to try and have direct control over a portion of the Internet - somthing that shouldn't be able to happen.

  • I think the only solution to the current top-level domain name fiasco is to kill off the .com, .net, and .org tld's. These three TLDs should be replaced by several new TLDs with clearly-defined charters and eligibility policies, like the .edu, .gov, and .mil domains: ie a .inc and .tm for businesses & trademarks, .etc for the masses, .sex for the obvious.

    If we stop accepting new registrations in the current TLD's now, all the existing registrations will have expired in two years. They could then be recycled and assigned in a more intelligent manner.
    "The axiom 'An honest man has nothing to fear from the police'

  • by root ( 1428 ) on Friday April 21, 2000 @02:26PM (#1118387) Homepage
    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,,, 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.


  • Remeber that all domain names technically end in '.' (e.g.,, where '.' represents the "top level" domain under which domains like 'com', 'org', et al are registered.

    So if someone were to create a 'slash' domain on the same level as 'com', the URL:


    could be a perfectly legal and workable address, assuming your browser accepted it.
  • Can somebody answer me this question and perhaps point me to some resource on the net regarding this: are there any technical reasons why we couldn't have thousands and thousands of TLDs?

    Thank you,
  • No, really, when I was learning english, I was taught the english word "Bank" means independent, monetary investments and credit institution. Now, I gues banc is the smaler brother of Bank?

  • The .us domain is the only one more screwed up than .net and .org

    There needs to be three new TLDs:
    .usa (so that the wrold wide .com stuff may be less attactvie and to add some reagonality that .us can't provide)
    .xxx (to give all these silly goverments material for new laws)
    .oz (which was the first country code for .au and is so much cooler)
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 21, 2000 @04:27PM (#1118405)
    Name.Space [], 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 [] 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! []

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

    web .

    see Vote for new gTLDs []
    and Name.Space active gTLDs [].

    In an early effort to gain the global recognition of the new gTLDs serviced by Name.Space [], a letter was sent to Network Solutions on March 11, 1997 requesting the addition of the gTLDs serviced by Name.Space [] 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 [] subsequently filed an ANTITRUST [] action against NSI on March 20, 1997.

    After more than three years of litigation, the Court of Appeals ruled against Name.Space [] 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 [])

    In the original complaint, Name.Space [] 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 [], 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 [] 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 [] 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 [] file today by downloading it and installing it on your DNS servers. For more info, see go to Switch to Name.Space []
  • 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.
  • It may not be "fair" but the U.S. Government (the .gov and .mil people) paid for much of the early development and operation of the Internet, which was primarily a U.S. network for years. That is a historical fact, not a devious imperialist conspiracy.
  • Know what? All this .com bullshit, and all the domain wierdness is just going to burn itself out.
    We are quickly approaching a point where poeple realize that the DNS is *NOT* the best way to look up services, and that the domain name doesn't have to be the most important part of your web presence. It's just a pointer man...

    Companies who make their money off of registration *need* to get more TLD's, or they will go out of business. Think about it. We run out of meaningful domains, but don't run out of meaningful things to put on the web, so people will find other ways to do it. I mean, really.. if people know an address once, they know it anyway.. it doesn't have to be a catchy domain. Heck, most are too long to bother typing anyway..... I just bookmark it or yahoo it..
  • In fact we do. Technically speaking, TLD's are a necessity to get the present distributed database known as DNS to work. If you throw the hierarchial structure out the window every DNS-server would have to have information on every zone (domain) in existence. Imagine the time and bandwidth necessary to update the DNS's around the globe when you decide to register a new zone. :-o
    That was actually how it worked back in the ARPA-net days with the hosts-file. One big file with all hosts on the net. Then more hosts. Bigger files. Even more hosts.. DNS. The rest is, as they say, history. So, some sort of tree-structure is necessary. That means TLD's one way or the other.
  • This is why we must end the TLD Tyranny! Come, my brothers, you know this is the Right Thing.

    What is a TLD but some kind of sorting convention? Who cares is you are for profit, not for profit, for profit but educational, not for profit but also a net provider-- none of this matters anymore now that the Internet is privatized!

    Have you seen Slashdot []? Perfect example of a .org that should be a .com-- they are owned by a corporation and are a profit making institution!!!

    We don't need TLDs for anything. If somebody wants a TLD, let them register .open and have all open source project domains use that as their TLD. Or not. Who cares?

    Besides, TLDs don't give us more domain names because everyone cross registers. Trademarks still apply. So End the TLD Tyranny! Join the nearly one dozen people who have seen the light! Burn all TLDs!!

  • A number of posters have said (seriously and jokingly) that the TLD namespace should be opened up to any names. This would be a massive mistake, given the way things are currently set up.

    First off, you increase the problem drastically. What is .aclu? Is it THE ACLU? Nope, they've got Must be someone else. Ah, Albert Clemens Lucifer Ulbritch.... The namespace is broken up a little right now. .net and .com are not synonymous, but there is not enough distinction (NSI's fault, really). .org is clearly distinguished, and a lot of companies do not bother buying .org because they understand the meaning of it, and it holds no value for them.

    I really think that .per should exist for individuals. .shop isn't so bad, but there will be a lot of companies that will buy a .shop just because they might want to someday sell something. :-(

    The real solution is to start charging big money for domain names (first create a cheap .per). If a domain costs $1000/yr to register, most companies will think twice about picking up 100 of them. This seems high, but think about the cost of a sign for your business. What about a new office? Enough computers to run a small department? Domain names are insanely cheap, and the price needs to go up to reflect the value of domain names as a commodity.
  • We shouldn't have generic TLDs. Certainly .gov and .mil should be moved under .us, and non-USA educational institutions don't use .edu, so that could easily be moved under .us.

    I would like to see .org, .net, and .com moved to be under .us, as well. At least the *vast* majority should be moved to,, and

    What's the point of generic top level domains, anyway?
  • I only mean that current law recognizes that some trademarks are so widely recognized that they essentially do have exclusive control of the word in any industry. That's how Sony can keep a restaurant from using the name "Sony's" (even though the lady who owns the restaurant is named "Sony".

    I'm not saying it's right (although I don't think it's wrong, either) only recognizing that having 100,000 domains would still be compatible with current trademark law, which acknowledges the existence of some "supertrademarks" like Coke, McDonalds, & Sony. It would take a company of that size to afford registering all of the possibilities, and only a company of that size would legally own the trademark to such an extent anyways.

    But to answer your question, Coke would be able to prevent the use of the word "Coke" as a trade name for a drug, soft drink, or smokeless fuel. Saying something is "coke" when you sell a smokeless fuel is different from selling "Coke (tm) brand Smokeless Fuel". Although for just that reason of confusion, most companies prefer to make up a word (like "Kodak") so that they never have to face the issue...

Logic is the chastity belt of the mind!