Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
The Internet

.god Domain Names: Another "Pioneer" Registrar 211

commodoresloat writes: "According to this article, the top-level domain (TLD) .god will soon be available. Most interesting is that Joe Baptista, who will be selling domain names under the TLD, says outright that he will not respect trademarks or even court decisions ordering him to respect trademarks. Does this mean anyone can register microsoft.god?" Available, maybe, but not very useful if ICANN doesn't care to ever recognize them. Note, though, the site is only semi-functional. "The registry will allow you to look up dot.god names for availability but it will not allow you to register at this time." Pity. I hope CmdrTaco gets credit.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

.god Domain Names: Another "Pioneer" Registrar

Comments Filter:
  • To make this work, and to allow for "anything" to be a TLD, and to finally get NSI out of everyone's hair, we have to decentralize the DNS system.

    I suggest that something like the GNUtella approach be applied to domain names. You could search for "Microsoft" and get not only Microsoft,.com but 3712 MSCE's personal home pages, 38 pages of Microsoft jokes, "Windows Millennium Annoyances" and 7253098 Linux sites...

    Hm, then DNS would become the search engine, which didn't occur to me when this idea popped into my head... Maybe this idea is way out there, but there it is.

  • I can see more religions taking offense at this. Is this not a really good way to take the Lord's name in vain, as well as put Gods above God? And some other Old Testament no-no's could spring up.
    Paul Bryson
  • by sk1tch ( 152715 )
    what is required to register a top level domain like .god? can just anyone register it and get it recognized by icann?
  • Oh, now you want to get technical on me! B-)
    Actually, being a party is not a requirement.


    A statement which before being signed, the person signing takes an oath that the contents are, to the best of their knowledge, true. It is also signed by a notary or some other judicial officer that can administer oaths, to the effect that the person signing the affidavit was under oath when doing so. These documents carry great weight in Courts to the extent that judges frequently accept an affidavit instead of the testimony of the witness.

  • Joe's usually short for Joseph-- I've never heard it used for John.
  • If this was the u.k, i *think* he`d be in contempt of court if ordered to hand over domain xxx.god to company y, and he refused. Isnt this the same (or similar) in the states?
  • >"Can I bring my laptop?"
    >Yes, but you can only run one of the following operating systems
    >Windows 3.0
    >Windows NT 3.1
    >It is, after all, hell

    ugh.. first time someone actually came close to converting me...

  • "Can I bring my laptop?"

    Yes, but you can only run one of the following operating systems

    Windows 3.0
    Windows NT 3.1

    It is, after all, hell

  • yep, it's disrespectful, and that's the whole point of it. the whole domain registration issue has gotten so ridiculous that disrespect is quite a reasonable thing to do. then again, I don't see how that warrants an article; any idiot with an internet connection can run BIND and set up TLDs that no-one else will see unless they use his nameservers.
  • No, actually you can't distinguish sites based on their top level anymore. There is a pervasive attitude that .com namespace is more "valuable" in a virtual real estate sense than other top level domains. I guess it's kind of like physical real estate: your property value is lower if you live in a dump of a neighborhood and higher if you live on Boardwalk. The internet savvy Barry Ploegels [] of the world would rather be on the same TLD as and than with some kind of Isle of Niue .nu trailer trash. I wouldn't be surprised if many people who were first introduced to web site addresses from television still aren't completely conscious of other top level domains besides dot-com. Doesn't that buzzword make you nauseous? It doesn't help that web browsers give preferential name completion to .com. Why can't I type "aardvark" into my Location bar and get sent to [] which actually contains useful information about aardvarks! Instead, I wind up on some random consulting company's site. Damn, I sound like Andy Rooney.

    Seriously, TLDs are totally unreliable when it comes to determining information about a site. Non profit organizations and non-US businesses have .coms. Dumb cam-girls who wouldn't know a router from an alarm clock have .nets. A guy I know who ran a textfile group called Radioactive Aardvark Dung (RAD) registered (pretending to be the "Raleigh School of Art and Design") and used that domain for nearly two years before Internic figured out it was bogus. Others own domains on top levels located in Pacific islands that they can't locate on a map because manifest destiny minded people have already grabbed the .com, .net, and .org domains of nearly any string they would want.

    While I'm ranting-- and since crazed Andy Rooney mode is on, I propose that the government establish some kind of Namespace Protection Agency. Our English word domain names are IN DANGER of extinction! Much like the great Sequoia groves of California and Amazon rain forests, businesses are now destroying the beauty of hierarchical categorization! The DNS tree, our Sequoia, once stood proud and balanced to give us O(log n) computational complexity in the worst case. Alas now it is but O(n)! (Proof is left as exercise to reader.)

    Perhaps there is no way to encourage the use of more structured, discernible domain names. Perhaps we are doomed to a single business hoarding thousands of second level domain names, virtual-hosted and without useful content. We can at least try to protect the most valuable and precious strings in our namespace. Here's the plan: we give second-level .com domain rights of all English words to the government so that we may admire them from afar, much like a stroll through a National Park. Reservation of English words would protect their generic beauty from exploitation by namespace Forty-Niners! Domain names that could be purchased would be nonsense words or acronyms. There is but a finite set of English words, but the set of nonsense words or acronyms is infinite. I could sit here all day thinking of up domain names like "squiggledumpkins" and "frobozzbastica"! And no one would bid $100,000 on any of them! Perhaps then people might buy domain names for their intended purpose: to identify a network, not a product.
  • And if I had moderation I would moderate this up...
  • ok so the .god idea is stupid, and well we are already doing something stupid need for something new. :)

    OTOH...I actually would like TLDs that mean something. It would really be nice to be able to tell something about the nature of the group that has the domain by the TLD. you know, back in the day having a .net address ment that you were an ISP or something, .com ment that you were selling something and so on. Yeah I know that it leads to the whole vs mess, but I like the information that it can give.
    pity it doesnt seem to work.

  • Anger buddy not fear.


    Daniel Zeaiter
    ICQ: 16889511

  • In order to mirror:
  • ...or .gods for the polytheistic

  • Yeh, let them have their .god - it'll just make it easier for school libraries and family homes to filter out religious junk.

    Also, maybe it would stop people getting thousands of church URLs everytime they try to search for their porn... ;)
  • being a geek and someone who is religious, its funny to see that all i hear about in church is how the so called information generation has forgotten about God. I guess this will make the hypocrites of my kind happy now, yay.
  • Hmm.. I bet even more people could be offended by the innoffensive [] if it was a .god domain..

    Get moving ICANN!

    and what about case- sensitivity? will .GOD have to be in all caps?
  • Too bad I was out of town last week... And I just registered []. Oh well.

    (hmm, will anybody see this 5 days after the fact?)

  • nietscheisdead.god
  • funny enough, I registered microsoftisnt.god with them :)
  • I thought the whole point of having .com, .org, .net and .edu was to reduce internet overhead

    Of course, that's also why there were IP Network classes. Now there are tons of Classless networks, and the routing tables are just plain *huge*.

    <sarcasm> soon, we'll see the advent of TLDv6....</sarcasm> *sigh*

  • It seems to me that any one of us fools could start a registry. The fact that no DNSs respect our system hardly matters -- people are willing to pay. I think that news of people starting new TLD registries will soon be like news of people auctioning off things on eBay: the press not realising a non-event when they see one.

    This is just stupid.

  • I found this about an hour ago, and started playing with it. I tried to register iam.god... Of course is.god would be a good investment (Imagine, for only $20 bucks, you can get *.is.god as your domain name!)
    Okay, it's probably not original, but It let me sign up for it!
    Hasta luego
  • ...would anyone want to register microsoft.god? Microsoft.666 maybe. Microsoft.god seems like what Bill will register when he decides to gather his killer robots and take over the world.

    I can just picture him after the ruling to break up M$, on the news saying: "We offered a comprimise to the DOJ, but they turned it down. So now my mechanical slaves will take over the world! Hahahahaha ALL HAIL MICROSOFT!" Then all TV screens all over the world turn black and then display the M$ logo. He will have support too because there were subliminal messages in all Windows operating systems.

    Then the rebels will gather in preperation to invade Redmond. They will airlift a penguin into the M$ building, who is hiding machine guns and bombs under its wings. It blows past Bill's minions and gets to the secret underground lair, just in time to see Bill putting on his human skin (he IS a robot after all!). Bill is alarmed and pushes a button under his desk, which sends in hundreds of killer robots that surround our hero. Fortunatly, all the robots are running Windows CE and they happen to come up with an "Illegal Error"! They all fall down, useless. However Bill is still active because he just rebooted, so he has about 30 seconds left until he crashes, and with no one to revive him, he is doomed. But Tux wants to take him out in style, so he aims, and... "HASTA LA VISTA BABY!!!!!".

    The world is once again safe for democracy.

  • I think alternate DNS installations are something that the Internet really needs more of. I don't like to see so much power on the net being with one system like it is now.

    There was never anything saying that there had to be just one system, and I for one would like to see alternate systems. It would create more redundancy, and probably would make it too difficult to bring stupid lawsuits against people who "have your trademarked domain" like the whole deal a while back. Making multiple systems would increase choice and impartial organizations for end users.

    And no, multiple registration authorities will not be the same. It's just not seperate enough. Everyone is still limited by the same TLDs and the same general system.

    Just my two cents.
  • "Man is certainly stark mad: He cannot make a flea, yet he makes .gods by the dozens." - Montaigne....sort of
  • If he succeds in registering such a TLD, there will be more than one corporation, willing to protect its trademarks by registering their domain name with a new suffix.

    It means that his claim of "not respecting trademarks and courts" might be a psychological pressure in order to push these corporations and collect a lot of registration fees.
  • could I have slash.god? 'cause I'm not, and I'd like to be... regards, Benjamin Carlson
  • Sory, I didn't think I had to be politically correct on /. If I want to be a Nazi right winger then why can't I? Free speech is free speech is it not?
  • Now look at what they've done. Propogating televangelism. I can see it now: sendmoneyto.god or buythehelpof.god I wish they could limit purchases only to non-religious people!
  • Wrong. You can start with any bible that is already in the public domain and create your own translation, or any other kind of original work and copyright it. A lot of bibles are copyrighted. Also, I'm sure you can take some kind of public domain version of the bible, and copyright your specific typesetting or other unique features. This prevents people from just making copies. Anybody interested in making a GPL of BSD-licence version of the bible? :)
  • The current system of using host names in URLs on the Internet is not well suited to the needs of the WWW. It was expedient and manageable for the initial growth, but now we need something better.

    This is probably the beginning of the current centralized naming system. People can set up name resolution on their own computers any way they like. If .GOD becomes popular, people will add it to their name resolvers so that they can resolve URLs that refer to it.

    You are probably also going to see little programs that make it easier to reconfigure name resolution statically or even on the fly. In fact, ActiveX components or VBScript "attachments" may be ever so helpful to users to do this automatically.

    The main constraint is that if users see a URL, they probably want to be able to resolve the host name to something that exists (but not always--I'd be happy never to resolve the advertisers). That will mean that in the short run, there will remain a core set of name servers that everybody will refer to.

    In the long run, browsers will probably almost exclusively use search engines to locate pages, the location bar will disappear, companies will use registered trademarks in ads to allow consumers to locate them ("look us up on the web under FooBar(TM)"), and URLs themselves will be replaced by something location independent. And the dealing in .com domain names will look like tulip mania in retrospect. At least we can hope.

    A darker possibility is that, in the process of migrating to a URL-less world, the ISPs will take over name resolution and locating content for you entirely so that you only get to see the pages they want. And it may also be more difficult to get personal or other oddball pages into the directories people will be using.

  • Perhaps it's just me, but I don't see what the .god TLD (A quite humerous one, too bad you all are going to get is.god) has to do with not respecting trademarks. Sure, that means you can register microsoft.god and such, but isn't that already illegal in 99.9% of the countries? It seems like Joe Baptista is just trying to seem like an evil anarchist.
  • by PD ( 9577 )
    I hope he doesn't give the routers the "full immersion" treatment!
  • Lets have a .falco as well.

    Then when .coms like boo implode, we just move their registrations over to the .falco TLD.

    Whats a Falco ?/a> []

  • ?

    Yep - sounds good to me ;)
  • by banky ( 9941 ) <gregg.neurobashing@com> on Thursday May 18, 2000 @02:53PM (#1062310) Homepage Journal
    ...will be the extreme RUSH of people to register sex, football, unix, and god.
  • Absolutely. A flat naming system will end up helping absolutely no one. Those that propose abolishing TLDs are absolutely clueless.

    What we really need is a good standardized selection of 2LDs to be under a country TLD. (If you're truly international and not based in any country you get .int - simple.) If one country (say the US) wants to let XYZ Corp register,, and, that's up to whomever is in charge of the .us TLD.

    Personally I feel that proper usage of these 2LDs should be enforced. The web is not about trademarks. It's about finding information. The system should be helping you do that.

    I've currently got a .org address but I always wanted to be a .web. It's just an online activity, I'm not a non-profit organization!

    As far as switching to this new system, I think it should be an all-at-once deal. "At midnight GMT January 1, 2001, the new domain names will go into effect. Please make a note of it." If you allow a transition period, everyone's going to want to keep clinging to their old names.

  • by nezroy ( 84641 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @02:53PM (#1062312) Homepage
    I'd much rather see .odd than .god

    Of course, this does leave room for some great domains... wrathof.god, oh.god, iam.god... I wonder, though, if we'll see a .allah soon?

    Barring all else, I can't wait to see what the Christian/Catholic community has to say about this...
  • Are there no religions which recognize gods (note the capitalization []) of a sexual nature? (And, no, neither Bob nor Ron Jeremy are applicable.)

    Or is sex an unnatural act?

    Or is there only one "God"?

    Not that any of this matters. You seem to be afraid of blasphemy (whatever that means) of some organized sort. It is a statistical certainty that others disagree with your definition of blasphemy, even to the point of deducing you as the blasphemer. Which party is right, and justified in their use of .god, and which party is wrong and unjustified" I always like to think of myself as being correct in every context, too, but whenever I get to feeling that way, some Christian or another comes along and disagrees with me. Feh.

    Welcome to the real world, where freedom still reigns and some folks are still able to draw their own conclusions. Even about God (or gods), and where He/She/It/they may shove it (or not). Enjoy it while it lasts, as I assure you that the alternative is markedly inferior.

  • .. so I can good subdomains:

    Of course there are OTHER is.god subdomains.. anybody ELSE have good ones? =)

    .- CitizenC (User Info [])
  • she thought it was fewkin hilarious!!!
  • by zCyl ( 14362 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @06:21PM (#1062316)
    Hey! I have a brilliant idea! Why don't we just all agree to use AOL Keywords for everything?
  • by Zoyd ( 13778 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @02:55PM (#1062317)
    ...Joe Baptista, who will be selling domain names under the TLD, says outright that he will not respect trademarks or even court decisions ordering him to respect trademarks.

    Well, who does he think he is? God?
  • Ph34r not, brothers in the source. The Gates of Hell Will Not Prevail.

    Anyway, please stop posting crap, Dr Fool.

  • Well, Let's see... The two letter TLD's all belong to countries, so it's not really fair to be upset just because some countries see the benifit of selling un-real estate, AND,
    No one really seems to have kept up the intent of the COM/ORG/NET division, so what the hell's the point. Or do you think /. is non-profit? So, why not just a few more internet area codes for people to pick from? But what's the point if anyone can use them for any reason? It's just a name in the end.


  • or perhaps
  • Of course, if its small groups putting together odds and ends here and there, who knows if any of them will take off? In order for them to be worthwhile, they need to be championed on a bigger scale, I think. Not to mention, this is assured to be unpopular with any of the companies that genuinely
  • by Wellspring ( 111524 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @03:16PM (#1062322)

    I've said it once, and I'll say it again. Burn All TLDs!!! OK, I really, really am serious. We simply don't need them.

    Think about it. Companies will always buy their domain name with every possible TLD no matter how many there are. So it isn't like we'll get any more domain names appearing when we create more and more restrictive rules.

    Meanwhile, the trademark disputes won't stop. They'll just get more lucrative. What's the point of trying to pigeonhole every site by its Jungian archetype? TLDs like .gov can exist, certainly, but why make those last three letters so important? Let's just open it up.

    Anything should be allowed to be a TLD. If coke wants to buy .coke, then fine. We've grown out of this authoritarian need to control everything. Let's just let go, and reorganize at a higher level.

    Funny as it sounds Burn All TLDs is really what I think we need to do. Leave it ALL open for everyone. If slashdot wants .slashdot or .flame or .grits, what other than an anal need to organize everything should stop them?

    I get the feeling that, like all the other times I have said this, I'll either get moderated into the floor or ignored. But this really is an important thing to think about. We all assign some magic importance to it, but it is just an organizing convention from the prehistoric past.

    Arpanet is gone. Time for us to find our names for ourselves.

  • Oops =( genuinely have the rights to a domain name.
    • pat.robertson.does.not.speak.for.god
    • why.god
    • geek.god
    • blasphemy.god

    The Second Amendment Sisters []
  • registering "microsoft.god"


    seems to me that would be about like crossing the proton streams. you know, dogs and cats, living together...


    Here are my

    Microsoft [] and AICN [] parodies, where are yours?

  • Well there is always the "of" subdomains. and to


  • why not [] vs. []
  • There's lots of room for exploitation of geographic domain names, e.g.

    What's next for TLDs? .rocks and .sucks?
  • no one- they're 'free for the first year'
  • Had he been a true visionary, he would have started the TLD ".isnotgod"

    Example: microsoft.isnotgod
  • He managed to piss everyone in the list off by saying that (essentially) the problem with the internet was poorly written software such as BIND and Sendmail (actually he is pissed because he was RBLed) to the point where Paul Vixie actually joined the list just to post a couple of messages in response.
    In fact, Baptista threatened to sue [] Vixie and the rest of the Mail Abuse Prevention System [] people. He went so far as to name all Internet users [] as members of a class-action lawsuit.

    (Off-topic note to CmdrTaco et al.: Fix extrans mode or remove it!)

  • ONCE I "checked the availability" of a domain name, one I considered to be odd enough that no one would have it and it turned out that no one did at that time. I came back the next day and that site "owned" it and wanted to charge me more than if I had gone to internick myself.

    more positive re-inforcement for my paranoia, now .god may be against me too.

  • What do you mean, 'corrup' the root servers? How did the guy from alternic do this? Did he actually have access to modify zones in the root servers? You simply cannot do this, it's not possible. As for this guy... if he wants to create his own tld.. that's just fine. It has no effect unless the root servers dig it... and they don't.
  • (Unless I'm mixing up names,) Joe does, however, get Extra Slack points for having been the guy who tied up various Canadian provincial and federal government organizations for a while by constantly faxing them his requests for fair treatment, better laws and regulations, etc.

    Nope, you're right, that's the guy. I've met him IRL (been to one of his parties, way back when), he's very ... interesting.

    This is my .sig. It isn't very big.
  • by Moderation abuser ( 184013 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @03:19PM (#1062337)
    That'd be my choice.
  • by Analysis Paralysis ( 175834 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @03:20PM (#1062338)
    Joe Baptista's domain is on the Realtime Blackhole List [] for spamming. Check this [] for full details.
  • Would it really be his responsibility to be a police-force for Trademark and Copyright infringement?.. Why should a registrar limit the registration of "mcdonalds.god" or "pepsi.god"? Unless these domains are actually used to infringe the copyright, why shouldn't "Joe McDonald" be able to own "mcdonalds.god"?..

    Taking it one step further- even if the site is a parody or direct rip-off of the trademark.. should the registrar really be held accountable rather than the owner? .. The internet is not like TV or Radio.. It is a "many to many" medium, more like the phone system.. Do we hold the phone company accountable if someone has a number that could "potentially" infringe on a copyright? (1-800-FAT-FOOD?)
  • by TrevorB ( 57780 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @03:22PM (#1062343) Homepage



    While we're resistering companies, how about:


    Or advertise your prowess in programming:


  • Spend your money on the damn content. We don't NEED more tld's. We don't even NEED more 2lds.....
    get working on new directory services for the web, start enforcing DNS registration policies, get .com, .net, and .org back to what they are supposed to be, and everyone else, get your ass back to work on CONTENT and FUNCTION.
    How will having a cool domain suddenly make the content of your site worth something? It won't..
  • Sure they may in theory help for web searching but generally I hate having to try Next we will have hundreds of tlds. I say abolish them all. We have language, lets use it. how about http://coke or http://slashdot. Infact most browsers will drop the http:// for you so lets get rid of that too (or make it http by default). If I hear another radio person say "my web site is at:
    aech,tee,tee,pee,colon,slash,slash,doubleyou,doubl eyou,doubleyou,dot,shit,com I will.............................................. ........................................ .................................................. ...........................SHIT!

    come on how about just plain old shit! that would be much better, no http, no com, gov, net etc.

  • And all system backups must be done onto 5 1/4 floppies...

  • Warning! Attempting to register "Oh.God" or the equally entertaining "Oh.God2" may lead to an actionable lawsuit by our friends at the MPAA.
  • Or perhaps instead of being an idiot, he is insightful. The domain of trademarks is commerce. (Damn overloaded language. Let me try that again...) The concept of "trademark" only exists in relevance to trades. It is logically impossible for a trademark to be violated outside of the scope of commerce. For example, when someone hands a mysteriously burned black rock to a geologist and the geologist says, "That is coke," he is not violating a trademark.

    I'm assuming that anything within the .god TLD is implicitly within the realm of religeon. (No, I don't truly and naively believe that's all it'll be used for, but the TLD nevertheless has a purpose, just as .com and .net do.) No religeon (except Scientology *cough*) could have a trademark, could it?

    Is the pope going to register a trademark on the word "Catholic"? What's next, copyrighting the bible? Yeah, we have to protect God's incentive to create such works.

    I'm an atheist have never witnessed anything supernatural in my life. But if a fiery chariot comes down from the heavens, bearing a being who says his name is "McDonalds", then I'll going to register and sing His praises on mcdonalds.god, and if any megacorp comes looking for me, I'll laugh in their face. This is out of your realm, Ronald!

  • remember...this is the internet...


    In this case, it's both. Americans in America are supposed to obey American law, even if the effects of their actions cross national boundaries.


  • uh... no.

    core is an independent registrar organization. is registered by one Nick Melnick of 2550 Long Lake Road, New Brighton, MN 55112.

    he registered it through, a core member.

    as soon as core popped up, i went and grabbed, a domain i had long lusted for, but which my requests for had been previously denied.

    down with nsi.


  • by zpengo ( 99887 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @04:17PM (#1062369) Homepage
    Hurry hurry hurry!

    Today only, register your domain under the following TLDs:

    • .atemyballs
    • .isawebsite
    • .foo
    • .dotdot (e.g., slashdot dot dot)
    • .natalie

    Each registration costs only $100. Get yours fast!

    note: this service does not cover anything other than adding your name to a list.

    Make your checks out to...

  • And think of all the other religions you could have ... .zeus, .thor ...
  • by Sonicboom ( 141577 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @03:31PM (#1062371) Journal
    Don't forget the 31337 .god domains.

  • A local church here in -- yep! -- Alabama had a sign out for a month or saying to visit them on the web at, much to the derision of my sinner techie friends & I. Little did we suspect that the name would actually be up for grabs before long... Jesus... hahahahaha

    This one's gonna be too good not to abuse. I can see it now -- atheist.god,, $ (with $foo as who/what ever), ask.god (hehe confessional! hahaha), find.god (aka 'where's waldo'), etc. The hilarity just may never end.

    But first, I've gotta get com.god. I must! hahahahaha

  • I tend to agree but it is nice to have a chance in hell of guessing a domain name.
  • The language changes, the meanings of words drift and mutate. Deal with it.

    You're suggesting that, when people are rude an offensive, I should just "deal with it?" I think not.

    Don't get me wrong here -- I'm not some crazy overly "PC" bastard. To hell with political correctness. There's a difference between trying to stop people from saying things that might be offensive, though, and asking them to stop saying things that are.

    You're right, meanings of words do change. And as it stands right now, "gay" means "homosexual." It does not mean "dumb" or "stupid." People insist on using it that way, though, and the end result is they end up offending people like me. And if you want to take an extremist view, they make the world an increasingly more hostile place in the eyes of gay kids, who hear these comments and think that everyone has something against them, for no good reason.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    Joe Baptista is the resident troller of the Domain Policy mailing list. I'm surprised you all fell for it.
  • by auntfloyd ( 18527 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @03:31PM (#1062389) Journal

    Will atheist DNS admins accept it?
  • Hey, Joe Baptista is a regular poster in the OpenSRS mailing list, doesn't seem like a service someone starting their own gTLD would be using. He seems like a real innovator. He managed to piss everyone in the list off by saying that (essentially) the problem with the internet was poorly written software such as BIND and Sendmail (actually he is pissed because he was RBLed) to the point where Paul Vixie actually joined the list just to post a couple of messages in response.
    Sarcasm aside, this guy is 20 pounds of BS in a 10 pound sack.

  • by billstewart ( 78916 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @04:46PM (#1062402) Journal
    Back when the DNS was first coming out, some of us UUCP-geezers weren't convinced that a central registration system would be accepted by the community - this was before trademarks were an issue, and it was ok to name your PDPs and Vaxen after colors like red, green, and blue, or common office equipment like xerox, coke, and mrcoffee, and there were 17+ machines named mozart and 30+ named bilbo or frodo. Local naming was the only real alternative (remember bang-routed email addresses?). Needless to say, we were wrong, and DNS was a big success for the first decade and a half, but there's still the problem that if there's only One Root To Rule Them All, somebody's got to run the thing and there will be naming conflicts. One of the main reasons DNS worked as well as it did is that most machines belonged to organizations with well-identified names, and they could fight it out internally for whose machine got to be

    There have been several proposals for adding more TLDs - the IAHC International Ad-Hoc Committee was relatively reasonable, ICANN was a bit less so, thoguh that was partly because it was a year or two later so there was more commercial conflict, and Esther (bless her heart) knew it would be a dirty job when she took it. As far as I know, the only proposals for new TLDs that have actually succeeded have been a few new country codes (because there's an existing bureaucracy for that, plus of course the countries who've made a quick buck by renting out their namespace), and Brad Templeton's proposal for .invalid, which is declared to be syntactically correct, so you can use it in books and demoware, but doesn't point to anything real.

    There have also been the disorganized proposals, from people like Kaspureff at Alternic, and the folks - start an alternative root, and try to convince people to use your root instead of the Big Roots, but they're fighting a losing game. It's partly a losing game because they've been losing (:-), and partly because it doesn't solve the fundamental problem, it just trashes any efficiencies you gain by shoving conflicting names down a layer in the tree so you don't see them if you're not looking for them.

    The people who've been successful at pushing new namespaces have taken different approaches - ICQ numbers are a global namespace, and nobody minds because they don't spell anything and the server can cope with the scale. Realnames sells namespace, and people who want it can use it. And all of these things can easily be patched under the DNS tree, e.g. or

    (Unless I'm mixing up names,) Joe does, however, get Extra Slack points for having been the guy who tied up various Canadian provincial and federal government organizations for a while by constantly faxing them his requests for fair treatment, better laws and regulations, etc.

  • ... L. Ronald McDonald?
  • by pnevares ( 96029 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @02:55PM (#1062407) Homepage
    Host names should be permanent. They define resources--and not legal jibberish. Legal jibberish can change anytime a judge farts.

    Isn't that actually how legal jibberish was created? (At least it's how I was taught in my school.) =)

    Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
  • Think Judy Blume would register areyouthere.god?
  • by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @02:56PM (#1062421) Homepage Journal
    I could set up a TLD and not have it recognized by ICANN. It doesn't take a whole lot to create one. Having anyone on the Internet be able to resolve it and not corrupting legitimate root servers are rather more difficult issues. I seem to recall that you'll get arrested or sued (I forget which at the moment) if you corrupt the root level DNS servers (Remember, the guy from Alternic did this a while back) so if that happens you can use the headline 'They killed .god!'

    If you want to do something really useful, modify gethostbyname() etc to use LDAP calls and set up an LDAP naming service.

  • by Chris Pimlott ( 16212 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @08:53PM (#1062423)
  • by jcsmith ( 124970 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @04:56PM (#1062436)
    Someone needs to register my.god just because it makes a sweet WHOIS lookup. It's perfect for those youngsters who are trying to find myself. Who needs years of self exploration when you can just boot up the box and type WHOIS my.god and get all the answers.
  • Sure. Then all the mess we have today under .com we'll have at top level. At least today we can distinguish between commercial, non-commercial and foreign sites.
  • say no more and you've got your income covered just from people renting subdomains. who can forget such classics as:

    • holy.motherof.god
    • holy.mary.motherof.god

    or of childhood favorite

    • http://jesus.mary.motherof.god/how/longisitgoing totake/for/you_to_mow_that_fucking_law n.html

    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • You are proving my point. I was saying that you can't copyright the Bible as in the original Bible because
    1. It was written by somebody else
    2. It is really old

    As I already said, translations are different.

    As far as a GPL or BSD Bible I wonder if you really understand how offensive that is. The Bible is viewed by believers as Divinely inspired. You can change things around but then it is no longer the Bible, merely a book that bears a resemblence to the original.

    As for how peeved people can get, try looking up the history and responses to heresy. I'm not defending either side as Jesus is about love and fidelity to God not the auto de fe, but I suspect you didn't realize the extent of your flamebaiting.

  • []
    It's only a "test registry" at the moment, but it's got links to create/modify/whois.

    Pablo Nevares, "the freshmaker".
  • We've grown out of this authoritarian need to control everything.

    Who's this "we" you refer to? Mankind? America? Slashdot?

  • by pkj ( 64294 ) on Thursday May 18, 2000 @05:34PM (#1062467)
    Brad Templeton (of rec.humor.funny and fame) wrote a very good analysis and solution of the problem several years ago, and it is still far and away the best I've heard. Read on... []


  • the theists have already got a pretty good search engine...

    just ask jeez []

    After 16 years, MTV has finally completed its deevolution into the shiny things network
  • Egos, that's what this is.

    Somebody wants to be the god of their own little world, and have everybody know. What other reason is there for such a label?

    .com, .org, .edu- those are all descriptive names for commercial enterprises, non-commercial organizations, and education stuff. But .god? What, you own that domain name, and have supreme power over it? Yay for you.

    yeah, it's funny, in a way. It's also very disrespectful and presumtuous. It seems to mock the other names, and anybody who dares believe in higher powers.

    I'm not going to say 'No, there should be no .god type domain names' There should be freedom, after all. However, I think it would have been better not to come out with .god. THere are so many other combinations of letters, that would be more meaningful.

    I hope I've done the HTML right. :-P


  • We're going to end up very soon with any 3 letters being accepted as a TLD. It's unavoidable. With time a few will rise and become standards, much the way we use 'com, org' gov etc now.

    .god is just another step. Who knows what TLD's will come next. . .

A consultant is a person who borrows your watch, tells you what time it is, pockets the watch, and sends you a bill for it.