Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
The Internet

New TLDs On The Way From ICANN 157

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This discussion has been archived.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

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Just a note:

    Today in the NYTimes Circuits section, there was a whole page ad for "www.*.tv" domains

    I just thought that was kewl



  • No, the only method that will scale with reality is to model the DNS after reality: Physical location.

    Local companies such as auto body shops should be encouraged to register domains under (state).us or (city).(state).us instead of the .com TLD. I don't even know offhand where to go to register a domain, or how much it costs, or what I have to do to get it - but I know several places to register a .com domain without even thinking about it.


  • Yes, they COULD do that. Or maybe the lynx people (or maybe even you!) could change lynx to do that for you?
  • That'll never happen. It'll be impossible to
    enforce, and many sites are quite general
    purpose (e.g. geocities). How would someone
    stick not-for-children content on geocities?
  • Competition? See The Open Root Server Confederation [] as well as This Comment, Above []. Exactly what you're looking for.

  • .mob -- So organized crime has it's own space for getting in on the Internet racket (not unlike the .com investors who got fleeced in the Big Securities Takedown yesterday),
    .cat -- Because one of our felines had his own phone line, why not a domain?
    .bum -- So Rush Limbaugh's research team can be quickly identified,
    .firstpost -- umm, never mind..
    "O Lord, grant me the courage to change the things I can,
    the serenity to accept those I cannot, and a big pile of money."
  • Because some people need more than two or three domain names. Witness GeekIssues. Originally, I registered However, when was having their $20 domain sale, I went and registered too. Why? After all, just redirects to the same site (and changes the URL to .org, since I'm non-profit). Two reasons:
    1. Someday, I may decide to sell T-shirts or something, or go commercial in some other way. This seems a bit far-fetched to me now, but who knows what I'll be thinking 5 years from now...
    2. (This is the real reason.) Suppose my site becomes semi-popular. Obviously, someone is going to register What's going to happen then? 10% of my traffic will go to that site, because a lot of people don't even know that something besides .com exists.
    So I guess I'm a bit of a hypocrite...

    BTW, posted with a recent Mozilla nightlie. This is getting very usable, stable, and fast. Maybe someone will hack together an MDI version of it... like Opera. :)


  • Or maybe prohibit any one entity (corporation or individual) from registering the same 2nd level domain in more than one TLD[1]. So if you register then you cannot also register, etc. This would force people to choose wisely in which TLD to register.

    [1] With the possible exception of ISPs who would be allowed to register in the .net TLD (for their own equipment) as well as an appropriate one for use by their customers.

  • I suppose that in a way it is similar to the situation wrt postage stamps. Stamps from every country, except the UK, carry the country name. Though the difference is that "non-country-marked" stamps do not claim to be global but are actually country specific.

    "aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash dot dot dot dot dot dot"

  • I'm still interested in getting a few interesting ones like....
    I better not go on or I'll be troll bait.
  • Instead of the current system of many DNS servers all listening only to Internic's, why not store the DNS database on every computer?

    If all people customized and hooked up to a new Name System, the current foofa would fade.

    No longer would ICANN have sole authority over TLDs. Any group could create their own mapping of of Names to Numbers, and the users would choose who to listen to.

    For example, I could create a list with IMO the most deserving owners occupying the best names.

    eToys.sell would sit besides Etoys.know or eBay.sell would crowd in with ebay.hate .

    I can hear your objections.

    No naming database would be complete!

    Just like Gnutella, your personal NS would contact other sources to find an unknown address.

    It's easily corruptable and/or insecure, and/or out of date!

    If ICANN's NS is wrong, try Slashdot's NS. If they don't work, go to GNU's NS.

    I imagine this distributed NS would break ICANN's strangehold and turn into a cross between the Open Directory and Everything2.

    A moderated, controversial naming system. The group of people you most trust through common interests would also share their opinion on links and names.

    How 'bout it?

  • Some tidbits from the Topic:
    2. Enforcement: An application for a TLD should explain the mechanism for charter enforcement where relevant and desired.

    So who gets to enforce the charter on .xxx? =)

    B. Type of TLD, such as but not limited to:
    • 1. Unrestricted (e.g., .com)
    • 2. Unrestricted with definition or semantic meaning, but no enforcement (e.g., .org)
    • 3. Restricted to a particular class of registrants or particular uses ("sponsored" or "chartered", e.g., .edu)

    This, and other parts of the Topic, suggest that ICANN is looking at actually enforcing the distinctions in any new TLDs. So if you go to mcdonalds.banc, you likely won't be getting an ad for Big Macs.

    Another interesting tidbit is:

    The Names Council also concluded that different types of TLDs warrant different types of protection for intellectual property. For example, some have reasoned that more protections are appropriate in a commercial TLD than in one designated for non-commercial uses.

    Which seems to imply that if a person named Ford registers ford under a TLD reserved for personal domain names, any claim by the auto maker would (in theory) be ignored.

    The last piece I'm going to point out is the timeline. The official announcment of the addition of any new TLDs won't be happening until November 1. Contracts between ICANN and registrars have a deadline of December 1. There is no mention of when the TLDs become available, but one would assume it would be after the contracts are finalized. (Please note that the schedule is only suggested and not final)

  • What I'd really like to see is at least one TLD that commercial entities may not purchase. There's no point in creating a new TLD if all the names that already exist in .com are going to be snatched up by the same companies ten minutes later.

    As an example, when this topic has come up before, one of the ones I really liked was the .fam TLD, for family sites. Something like this should be off-limits to corporations, so that, for example, someone name McDonald would be able to have mcdonald.fam. (Ideally, it would even require having that actually be your name, but that would get hairy. I might want to register a domain for my mother's family, which would use her maiden name, which is not my own last name. This would probably not be feasible...)

    I'm sure there are other possible TLDs that would be inappropriate for commercial entities. Let's restrict those so that there will actually be some domains left for the rest of us.

  • I misspelled .org on my way here today, and
    I thought "If they had a .rog TLD, Rob could
    take care of idiots like me" .

    And when the page finally loaded, what did I
    see up the top but a story about new TLDs.
    It's a sign from God I tell you.
  • Sorry, microsoft needs to maintain backward-compatability with some form of dos browser.

    so it becomes www.micros~1 and www.micros~2
  • What about this one?

    No new TLDs necessary, just convince the guy who owns :)

  • Should a site which shows a lady's ankle be required to be in ".xxx"?
  • The problem is that the current naming system is ambiguous. For example, could just as well refer to the International Conference on Artificial Neural Networks. Maybe there is also a group of poorly-spelling optimists called the ICANN club (as opposed to the ICANNOT club).

    The solution is to adopt an unambiguous naming system. Maybe calling it a "location" system is a better name. Just like the post office requires an unambiguous address to process the mail, the user needs to provide enough information to single out the desired site. The post office will not deliver mail with just a name on it (even if it is famous).

    There are of course a lot of details to be worked out, but my idea is that companies (or people) provide a classified list of names that refer to them, e.g., company name, physical location, products, trademarks, abbreviations, etc. The user fills out a form or uses a shorthand to describe the desired site. If not enough info is provided, the user can select from a list of matches. Once disambiguated, the browser can save the match.

    The disadvantages are that no one will get a short name and there would be an enormous hue and cry to make such a change. The advantages are that no one will be left out and it would be a more rational system.

  • The way the DNS system works currently makes that not really an option (without compleatly re-working it).

    Currently, if you look for, a request is sent to your local DNS, and asks it if it knows the number for that name.

    Assuming it doesn't, then the DNS ask's one of the root servers where the central list of all .com's are.

    It then asks the central list of all .coms where's DNS is.

    Then is asks's DNS for the number for

    It's a hierachical structure.

    So, no, it's not technologicaly straightfrowerd to remove TLD's a the moment.
  • If it makes them happy then let them do it. As for me I simply don't care.

    Let them name their sites whatever. They still got to get peoples attention. I'd rather stick with numbers, afterall, who can forget that /. is really

    It all gets changed into numbers in the end anyhow. Why get a middleman involved?

    Come see my website.
  • Not handled all that well, the system currently means that the company with the largest bank account is probably going to get the domain.

    Check out the case of Chase Business Solutions [] vs Chase Manhatten Bank, they're losing the domain basically because they don't have the huge sums of money to see it through court, even though there is no way they should be able to lose. . .

    (A HREF=" .html">Register article)

  • Moderate this UP!

    Boss of nothin. Big deal.
    Son, go get daddy's hard plastic eyes.
  • I actually think the best suggestion for a new top level domain in the document is a TLD devoted to material of an 'adult' nature.

    I have to agree with you there. Now, mind you, I'm the webperson for a N.O.W. website and I just sold my old house to a feminist non-profit, but I really think that we need to face certain facts, like where half of the traffic is (before napster).

    So, we could use a .xxx and/or .sex and also a .mp3 and a .exe

    Of course, some carriers will block these, but it makes it easier to deal with schools and libraries and repressive countries while allowing the Net to continue to be open for most people. Note that sex education would be either .org or .edu anyway.

  • Naming things .mp3 and .exe could quite possibly be a bad idea for people who use Internet Explorer (and let's face it, there are a lot of them).

    But naming things so that IE breaks is a good thing!

  • I would think county TLDs are quite a good idea because there _are_ a lot of things specific to a single country (think of goverment. for example). A company that is only available in a certain country; cultural information etc.

    Of course these "" adresses are quite stupid but that's an other matter
  • Then yould disable javascript on all .porn or .xxx sites so you won't get 30000 pop-up windows. EASY!
  • by pirodude ( 54707 )
    gimme www.clownpenis.fart baby!
  • Thats all fine and good for the soft stuff, but what about some hard core .xxxx stuff ;)

  • by mbyte ( 65875 )
    Yes ! Ever did try to get to the reiserfs page ?
    I mean, did you try: - grabber - grabber - grabber - grabber - grabber - grabber

    AARRRGGHH !!! stop it .. please. whats the point of this ?

    (ok .. for those who want reiserfs, the url is

    Samba Information HQ
  • How about .adult, or some variation thereof? No quabbling about who gets one: if you have content that requires age verification, you get it automatically, and if you don't, you don't. That segregates the pr0n industry, and of course makes it easy to filter content, yada yada. In addition, it makes any government regulation (read "sin tax") very easy to enforce.<p>Of course, that still leaves room for "questionable" content that parents may wish to filter by hand, so the good news for CyberPatrol, NetNanny, et al is that they're still in business.

    Dave Blau

  • Sure, some stuff like .xxx etc may be useful as noted by other posts, but what about the others?

    When you think of say, Microsoft, do you think whether it's a .com or .net or .org? Do you even bother to see who owns the .net or .org names? Who cares?

    How many people want to distinguish companies with the same name by their TLD? How many companies actually enjoy having to register under every single TLD (and sometimes under every country too) to protect against 'evil' ppl?

    In the end, one name is taken by one company. When we want to see XYZ, we go to XYZ, we don't worry about whether we want the .net or the .org versions. The only time extra TLDs become useful is when we want to trick users from other sites - ie .org and .net versions have sites supporting opposite views on a topic. But that's not a 'useful' application of TLDs.

  • Just wondering how the new "public" ICANN at large group fits into this.

    We obviously have a say, but will our voices be heard?

    Will we have a vote? naw....

    Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
  • But not too long, if they are going to discuss this during the July 15-16th meeting.

    I think that one important thing to consider is the phrase "consider adopting".

    The ICANN Board of Directors is expected to consider adopting such a policy at its meeting on 15-16 July 2000 in Yokohama, Japan.
    Interested in the Colorado Lottery?
  • imho, introducing a .sex TLD would set an unholy precedent. What about erotic art? Would that need to be .xxx as well? Or parody/jokes involving nekkid folks? When you have em all at their own .tld, of course this is censorship heaven ... people will start to demand blocking for (once again) the sake of children or something stoopid... this is just one more example of "help, protect my children because Im unable to raise and educate my kids in a proper manner, I just want to put them in front of the pc and let them entertain and educate themselves" ... or something like that. Whats next, a TLD for unpopular attitudes? Yeah, lets put up .geek, grreeat for agencies who look for unusual behaviour - all theyd have to do is a whois on *.geek :-/

  • Name space is a different issue from having a network entry. Of course .invalid isn't there - nobody owns it, and it's not *supposed* to have a network attached to it. .uucp works the way sethg described it, and it's similarly not something that the internic would have a good way to register - for instance, there's no central DNS server that's authoritative and nobody in charge. But the names are still part of the DNS name space.
  • Sure, it provides an additional place for pornographers to advertise their wares, and an additional set of names for the registrars to sell, some for high prices, like whoever first registers and sells it. (It might even be a good way for the name registrars to finance themselves :-) But it's unrealistic in a world-wide society without perfectly effective censorship to expect that there won't be large-commercial porn under .com, and there certainly will be small-business commercial porn, amateur porn, and people who post their photographs from their trip to the beach or their last party that have naked people in them, and people who use Bad Language on their web pages, all of which will stay in .com. And the rapidly emerging free disk space and photo exchange services, which live in .com and .net, have significant numbers of nude pictures on them.

    Basically, it's unworkable, but that doesn't mean that a few politicians won't encourage it as a way of telling their constituents that They're Doing Something.

  • 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.

    That's assuming that any TLD is as good as any other.

    Because it's entrenched in the minds of *billions* of people, .com will be the preferred domain for years. A few others like .web or .corp might become recognized, but that's probably it. All you do with new TLDs is make every company scramble for "mycompany.web" and "mycompany.corp", or whatever wins. (Or sue whoever got to them first.)

  • What I heard was there could be .xxx and a .adu for adult. The .adu for stuff like sexual preference and breast cancer.
  • I recently saw an ad for an agency that "protects a company's web identity," or something along those lines. Basically, this company gets paid to register all kinds of combinations of domain names, to prevent someone from setting up a site that is unfavorable to that company. For example, a company named Foo that hires these web identity people will probably have the following registered for them:
    • And so on...
    This is a major problem, that I don't know how to solve. Basically, during the first 6 months, all the usable domains will be snatched up by people like this, or squatters, and we will be back to our starting point. Perhaps Slashdotters have any input on this? Any possible solutions?

    Oh yeah, one more thing. The .cc domains are now available, and you can register them here [], and someone named Colin Burns Games has already snatched up [] []...


  • Topless beaches are more common in Europe than America. I have been to other countries where movie posters on the street showed as much nudity as the movie itself.

    What is weird is the extent to which you say things of which you know not.

  • There is a solution, and it's even in use.

    Start using country and state/province designations.

    For instance, the domain "writersblock" is a complete cockup. are all taken.

    The .com one isn't a business and is dysfunctional; the .net one has nothing to do with networks of any sort and is dysfunctional; the .org one is not a non-commercial organization: it's a Dutch magazine. Only the Canadian one is properly assigned and functional.

    This is typical: the TLDs are being misused, all the "good" words are taken and there are more domain name campers than there are fully functioning domains!

    Time to cut this shit out. If you're a home-town boy running a freebie web service out of the goodness of your heart, you get a If your running a registered business within your locale, then you'd get If you are large enough to be in several states, you get to be considered national, and get Only if you're truly an international business can you score the URL.

    This also resolves a lot of the problems with corporations stomping all over people. You could actually have! Sure as heck no one is ever going to confuse your URL with

    There are flaws with this system, to be sure.

    But it's a damned site (ha, ha) less flawed than the TLD cockups we have now and seem to be intent on maintaining.

  • Q12: Is the Names Council's recommendation that a "limited number of new top-level domains be introduced initially" a sensible way to minimize risks to Internet stability?
    Q16: Should any particular goal for, or limit on, the number of TLDs to be included in the initial introduction be established in advance, or alternatively should the number included in the initial introduction be guided by the extent to which proposals establish sound proofs of concept of varied new TLD attributes?
    Fixed; a second trial-introduction phase can be done later if we need to test new concepts. An inital limitation will make the initial introduction easier to manage and analyze.
    Q17: In view of the current competitive conditions, should the promotion of effective competition in the provision of registration services continue to be a significant motivation for adding fully open TLDs?
    No, we've already got competition on that level.
    Q18: Should the desire for diverse vendors of registry services in open TLDs be an important motivation in adding fully open TLDs?
    Absolutely. Competition in registry services is necessary to gain the full benefits of competition in registration services.
    Q22: How effective would other fully open TLDs be in providing effective competition to .com?
    Not very; .com has control of the mindspace.
    Q24: Would the likelihood of effective competition with .com be enhanced by making one or more of the single-character .com domains (which are currently registered to the IANA) available for use as the basis of a third-level registry (i.e. a registry that took registration of names in the form of or )? Should the single-character .com domains be made available for possible registry usage in conjunction with the initial group of additional TLDs?
    Absolutely, and yes, a limited number.
    Q25: Is increasing the utility of the DNS as a resource-location tool an appropriate goal in the introduction of new TLDs?
    Q26: Would the introduction of unrestricted, undifferentiated TLDs run counter to this goal? Q27: If so, are there ways of accommodating the goal of enhancing registry-level competition with the goal of enhancing the utility of the DNS?
    Yes. The logical method would be to introduce several .?.com domains as new unrestricted, undifferentiated pseudoTLDs, and make all new gTLDs restricted and differentiated.
    Q28: Is the concept of TLD "charters" helpful in promoting the appropriate evolution of the DNS?
    Q32: Should chartered TLDs be introduced according to a pre-defined system, or should proposals be evaluated on an individualized basis?
    A pre-defined system; DNS should be an orderly and stable system.
    Q34: Has the inventory of useful and available domain names reached an unacceptably low level?
    No; however, the squatters seizing a large segment of the useful domain names in a specific field is a problem.
    Q35: Assuming it is important to increase the inventory of available domain names, should that be done by adding TLDs that are not differentiated from the present ones?
    Only in the .?.com space. New gTLDs should be chartered and the charers enforced; that way squatters cannot seize them.
    Q36: Should the formulation of policies for limited-purpose TLDs be delegated to sponsoring organizations? In all cases or only in some?
    In all cases. Let's keep the work as decentralized as possible.
    Q37: What measures should be employed to encourage or require that a sponsoring organization is appropriately representative of the TLD's intended stakeholders?
    ICANN should review those organizations on a regular basis; if they are acting inappropriately, the TLD should be transferred to the oversight of another group. The agreement with a sponsoring organization should be clear that ICANN may take such action at any time for any reason; the organization is acting as a delegate of ICANN, and has no rights not delegated by ICANN.
    Q38: In cases where sponsoring organizations are appointed, what measures should be established to ensure that the interests of the global Internet community are served in the operation of the TLD?
    As above.
    Q41: Does the start up of a new TLD pose additional risks to intellectual property rights that warrant additional protections?
    Q42: Should the protections afforded intellectual property in the start-up phase of new TLDs differ depending on the type of TLD?
    Q43: Is the availability of the UDRP and court proceedings as remedies for violations of enforceable legal rights an appropriate element of protection of intellectual-property rights that should apply to all new TLDs? Are there any other protections that should be made available in all new TLDs, regardless of their type?
    Yes. No new protections are necessary.
    Q44: Does the start up of a new TLD pose difficulties for those other than intellectual property owners that should be addressed through special procedures?
    Q45: What mechanisms for start up of a new TLD should be followed to ensure that all persons receive a fair chance to obtain registrations?
    Each registrar should register one name at a time in order until any backlog is resolved; then new names should be registered on a first-come, first-served basis.
    Q46: Is exclusion of names appearing on a globally famous trademark list a workable method of protecting such marks from infringement at the present time? Would an exclusion mechanism be approprate in the future?
    No and no. Any company with a "globally famous trademark" can afford the attorneys to enforce it via court proceedings. ICANN's job is not to make the lives of companies with "globally famous trademarks" easier.
    Q55: Should there be minimum or maximum length requirements for TLD codes? Are restrictions appropriate to avoid possible future conflicts with ISO 3166-1 codes?
    Yes. All new TLD codes should be four letters in length; this avoids conflicts with all 2- and 3-letter ISO 3166-1 codes and will not break any hard-length limits in software currently in use (as .arpa is a four letter domain already active).
    Q56: Should there be restrictions on the types of TLD labels that are established (for example, a prohibition of country names)?
    Q57: What should be the criteria for selecting between potential TLD labels? Should non-English language TLD labels be favored?
    English, currently the language most closely resembing an international language, is the most appropriate language for TLD labels. Evaluating such labels against the Interlingua vocabulary would be appropriate. TLDs with charters limiting themselves to single-language pages may be appropriate for languages with significant populations of users in more than one country (for example, in order of number of speakers; Spanish, Arabic, Portuguese, Russian, German, French, and Malay-Indonesian).
    Q63: Should ICANN accept proposals from companies formed/forming for the purpose of operating or sponsoring a new TLD? If so, how should ICANN determine the competence of the company?
    Q64: If a company has significant operational or policy positions not yet filled, how should ICANN evaluate the level of competence of officers and employees?
    Unready and ineligible.

    Steven E. Ehrbar

  • by Phexro ( 9814 )
    adding more TLDs is just going to increase the pollution of the namespace. just imagine how many people are going to go out and register microsoft.FOO or metallica.FOO in the hopes that the `real' company/band/whatever will shell out some cash to get it.

    on the other hand, maybe icann is in bed with nsi or core. there are bound to be a _lot_ more domain registrations with more TLDs to overrun and pollute.

    come on. it's pretty obvious that the current system isn't working too well. how about designing a new domain structure and scrapping the current one. make people registering new domains prove that they have a real need for it, and have a group of people monitoring of the registrars to prevent approval of domain name squatting and namespace pollution. offer anyone with a currently active domain free re-registration in the new system, maybe with a free year or something.

    i'm sure that everyone will shoot that idea down, but you have to do the same thing to get a block of ip addresses; theory being that if everyone and their brother go out and get a full /24, they aren't real likely to use the whole thing. so you have to justify your needs. why should the domain structure be any different?


  • yeah, but what about the people who register frequent mis-spellings of major sites. like atlavista. com []?

    just because the TLDs are there does not mean that people will use them. and tricks like mis-spellings and (where is the `real' site) get those types of sites _far_ more exposure than they would get if they all existed in .sex, .xxx, or .porn.


  • by Phexro ( 9814 )
    not really, they're only expensive if you pay nsi. joker just lowered their price from $15us to $12us for a year.

    i'd have _no_ problem paying $20 - $25us for a domain, it's still a quarter of the price nsi charges.


  • But I was under the impression that ANYONE could run a root server (certain qualifications withstanding, of course)

    In theory, you could. Alternic tried to do that very thing. Unfortunately, you have to talk the rest of the world into using your root servers, a nearly impossible task these days. If no one looks at your root server, no one uses your maps. Right now, NSI has a monopoly on root servers for the com, net, and org TLDs, so everyone has to pay a vig to NSI.

    It is one of the reasons a peer-to-peer, more loosely structured heiarchical service is needed to replace DNS, hopefully for IPv6.

    Oh, and just in case, IANANSIE, among other things...

    Sorry, my comment was more toung in cheeck, not intended as an actuall accusation. I probably should have inserted the appropriate disclaimer in the original post.
  • NSI is an accredited registrar, as are the 50 others. NSI is not a monopoly. Everyone has thier own choice... i'm so sick of people crying over NSI.


    Thank you for playing, Mr. NSI employee.

    If you check the pricing structure of any "accredited registar" you will find that $6 for each domain gets paid to NSI, not matter who you register it with. Yup, that domain you just got from just sent another $6 into NSI's pockets. Why? They still run the root DNS domains for .com, .net, and .org, and "have to cover their costs" (which, if it were true, would be about $0.06 / domain, not $6).
  • We've been hearing about new TLDs for almost two years now. I think we desperately need them. Domain names need to map (at least somewhat loosely) onto international trademark law so that and don't conflict in any way. Trademark law is built around the concept of avoiding consumer confusion.

    Trademark law is built around the concept of protecting intellectual property, not around avoiding consumer confusion. This avoidance is a by-product and a test of potential infringement, but not the core driver.

    As far as the mapping problem goes, this isn't a problem that DNS can solve and one that is addressed quite well by existing trademark law, thank you very much. By using DNS to solve this mapping problem, we are likely to afford IP holders extra-legal protection at the expense of individuals - not something that I particularly look forward to.





  • Learn, modify, then repeat until failure.

    Yours in science,

    Bowie J. Poag
  • by Pope ( 17780 )
    WTF is .cc supposed to represent ?


    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • Of course .invalid isn't there - nobody owns it, and it's not *supposed* to have a network attached to it. .uucp works the way sethg described it, and it's similarly not something that the internic would have a good way to register...

    I'm not saying there are no entries in the domains in question. I'm saying the domains themselves do not exist in the Internet DNS namespace.

    For comparison, .IN-ADDR.ARPA. is registered in the DNS, even though nobody in particular "owns" it. . (the DNS root) is registered, too. But invalid. doesn't exist.

    But the names are still part of the DNS name space.

    Um, no, they're not. For a domain name to be part of the Internet Domain Name System, they must be registered with the root name servers. Simply no two ways about it. If A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET (which is the same as NS.INTERNIC.NET) doesn't know about the domain, it doesn't exist. Period.

    Now, maybe someone has a convention of using invalid. as a domain for invalid domains (like many use localdomain. as domain for the localhost entry) but it isn't part of the DNS.

    Make sense?
  • Now, I'm not saying that hierarchal systems are flawed in general, but they're not good for this purpose.

    Unfortunately, the Domain Name System protocol and structure is a hierarchy. It was designed that way on purpose for scalability, delegation, and organizational purposes. This may lead to complex systems, as TBL observed, but there isn't much you can do about it.

    Indeed, computers more or less need a hierarchy to be efficient at sorting and lookup, which is exactly what DNS servers do. I'm not so sure we can get around that practical requirement.
  • Whatever... just because you can't scale it to every atom in the universe doesn't mean it's broken.

    Right. But if it can't scale to every entity that wants an entry, it is broken. You think it's bad now? What happens when all six billion people on the planet have email, and all the businesses that go with them do too?

    The DNS has to scale to this level, or it will collapse.

    The whole point of DNS is to make it EASIER to remember site locations.

    DNS was invented to automate the process of distributing information about network hosts. It used to be that everyone was listed in everyone else's /etc/hosts file (or local equivalent). That didn't scale (hey -- there's that word again!) so DNS was invented as a hierarchal way to organize the process.

    It most explicitly was not created to make it easier for someone to guess a company's address by typing random words into the "Location" bar of your browser. The DNS exists to name things. It does not exist to find them. Naming and Finding are two distinctly different things.

    And what about people... people want nameservice too.

    People generally have physical locations, too. :)

    Again, the better points of DNS is that it doesn't matter where you are or what your ip is.

    This is, of course, an issue, and one I don't have an immediate solution for. Businesses, at least, have a place of incorporation, but even that can move if you want. And people move more often then businesses do.

    But how do you expect a ".indiv" (or whatever) domain to scale to six billion people? Or more?

    And this misuse you speak of.. how are you supposed to keep it from happening in this system as well?

    People have legal residences. Businesses have a place of incorporation. These are tried and true methods which are already in place and have been proven to work.

    At least you can prove that IBM has nothing to do with: food, sex, banking, personal name or art.

    IBM does offer financial services (leasing of equipment and such), so they could certainly justify that. What about their cafeteria food services? And IBM makes large donations to the humanities, so you could argue art as well.

    Point being: How do you administer this tangled mess of TLDs you propose we create?

    Adding more TLDs would actually lower the value of each TLD, so it's not worth getting because no one in their right mind would ever go there.

    Wrong. Nobody in their right mind goes to, either, but guess who owns it? For any company serious about their Internet presence (which should, eventually, be equal to any company), the cost to register additional domains is small compared to the potential trouble not registering them costs.

    The whole point of new TLD's is to relieve the pressure on the .com namespace. the whole reason we got into this mess is because it hasn't been expanded.

    Again I point out that the us. domain structure was created in response to this very problem.

    If everybody had to use the long a$$ physical location scheme that would be the biggest boost to alternate forms of address lookups they could possibly hope for.

    Great! Then maybe people will stop using the DNS as a phone book and start using it the way it was intended!
  • Why not a limit on the number of diomain names that can be registered to any individual, company or organization.

    Gee, it would really suck to be a network application service provider, if you could only have a maximum of two customers.
  • .invalid and .uucp ... There are two current TLDs that the ICANN web page doesn't mention. doesn't think they exist.

    I have to assume it knows what it is talking about.
  • I understand why this would be nice - it's easy to filter and recognize adult sites.

    But it won't (and can't) prevent people from putting adult material on any other TLD. So what's the point? All the adults sites that exist now will (most likely) stay where they are.

  • Depends on the country.

    France tends to be fairly open about this sort of thing, IME. Topless bathing on pretty much _any_ beach, plus limited nudity on billboards and the like, or earlier evening TV than over here. What little I've seen of Germany suggests that's pretty similar.

    In the UK we're probably about halfway to that. Nudity on billboards or TV before 9 simply isn't allowed - well, depends on your definition of nudity. One magazine projected a shot of a TV presenter's bottom on to the Houses of Parliament, which they'd run on their cover. Anything more than that would definitely get complaints, though. Topless bathing can happen anywhere, but is still pretty rare.

    On the other side, we _will_ moan loudly about violence or gore (no not Gore...) - the general opinion being that it just desensitises the kids and warps their valuesystems.
  • Naming things .mp3 and .exe could quite possibly be a bad idea for people who use Internet Explorer (and let's face it, there are a lot of them). Disregarding the fact that .com has been used for around 20 years as a command file extension in DOS, IE is still able to run an application or file if you just type the name --not even the path, if it's on the desktop.
  • No, no - the cheesy scams go under dotcon.

    And to make things interesting for the pr0n industry, let's give them .cum instead :-)

  • There are two current TLDs that the ICANN web page doesn't mention. They're both special. .invalid is something that Brad Templeton got approved, which is a reserved name for syntactically correct use in books, local networks, and other things that aren't supposed to propagate to the real world. And .uucp is a wierd domain-like thing for hanging uucp names off of.
  • .porn, .sex, .xxx tlds would be handy, but they would only filter 'legit' adult content. (sites like playboy / penthouse that everyone knows)

    In their scramble for exposure, you'd still get sites squatting on .com/org/net domains to get hits.
  • If the proposal is to force all porn sites into .xxx that's is a very bad idea.

    But in fact, the proposal is simply to create a .xxx TLD that would be restricted to just porn sites.

    And I'm assuming this wouldn't have the problems that the current namespace has since I doubt many companies want to register a lot of .xxx names (though obviously there will be lawsuits if there is a site).
  • ICANN should create .rog, .ogr, .cmo, and similar TLDs, and alias them to the obvious. It would save so much time.
    ... especially when I type slashdot.rog into lynx and it looks up,, and as well.
  • I absolutely disagree here.

    The core tennants of trademark law have nothing to do with intellectual property. Trademarks are not intellectual property in any way (there is no content to them). Trademarks are words and symbols associated with a company and its products. You may be confusing Trademark law with Patent or Copyright law.

    So here's the issue (and maybe I didn't make my point clearly enough): if you have a restaurant called McDonald's and I have a software company called McDonald's, we know that consumers will not be confused between the two (you sell greasy burgers and I sell buggy software--no comparison, right?).

    Now comes the web. is just a commercial domain. It does not distinguish what kind of business it is. It's just commercial. You and I both plausibly have a right to the domain and both of us arguably confuse each others customers by using it.

    Does that make sense?
  • We've been hearing about new TLDs for almost two years now. I think we desperately need them. Domain names need to map (at least somewhat loosely) onto international trademark law so that and don't conflict in any way. Trademark law is built around the concept of avoiding consumer confusion.

    But I remain sceptical. ICANN has a difficult job, no doubt about it. But so far, they haven't managed to make much progess.
  • This is what I think will happen. TLDs are still being used as some kind of pigeonholing mechanism. The fact is that life is more complicated than a series of categories.

    ICANN's paper makes a great point: the stability of the DNS system is paramount. So while I strongly believe in burning all TLDs, I do think that we'll need some new TLDs as a test before this is possible.

    Long term, though, remains the same: we don't need TLDs. They are from a time when the Internet was a regulated government system, and are now obsolete. Nowadays, everyone registers their name under all available TLDs anyway as legal protection. So adding more only will make the same small number of good TLDs more expensive for people like us.

    Remove all TLDs, though, and people can establish their own heirarchies. Someone in another thread said this was like AOL keywords. Well, yes and no. It is more extensible, but ultimately, keywords are a better UI than long complex addresses.

  • In glancing through the document, I notice that they do mention trademark law, and the need for enforcement, but not excessive enforcement. The groups couldn't come to an agreement on how the trademark issue should be dealt with, which is a good sign, I think.

    BUT, it will only matter if there is enforcement. .com, .net and .org would have been much better had they been enforced. Granted, we would have "run out" of "useable" domain names long before now, but the users would be much more informed as to their purpose.

    So, I'm all for the new gTLDs, as long as the rules for application in .BLAH is public, and strickly enforced. Like someone else meant, they should split them up based on trademark law (hopefully as generic as possible, not US based), so that (to use the other example) and McDonalds.car_repair aren't both the Micro$o~1 of the eating world.

    This is my .sig. It isn't very big.
  • That reminds me of another idea I was bemusedly kicking around for some time:

    Serve Slashdot via a special "Slash" protocol. This, with the above, gives us:


    "slash colon slash slash slash dot dot dot slash dot slash slash"

    Man, now "Slash" doesn't even sound like a real word... it's like when you say "dolphin" over and over again 'til you start wondering who in their right mind would build a doll with fins.

  • A lot of people have been suggesting that even if we throw out a few more TLDs, they'll just be grabbed up by the squatters and we'll have the same problem in six months. But the whole problem is the scarcity. If there are 100 TLDs, then at $35 a pop per you're looking at $3500 just to get one name locked up. Any company that wants something similar to what you've got can just change it a bit and there's no way a squatter's going to be able to cover all the permutations like he can now. My brother recently had an offer for a domain he's had for six years. They offered $50,000. Admittedly, it's not anything like that's in high demand, but still, if he had been a squatter, he would have had to pay half of that amount just to keep the domains locked up for the 6 years. Plus there might be less of an increased demand for the Holy .com domain.

    Reduce the artificial scarcities, and it won't be profitable to snatch up domains anymore, solving the problem quite nicely. Of course, the business of selling them would be hurt, which means I doubt if we'll see it happen anytime soon. Why make it so they only have to buy one domain instead of the three or more they have to get now?

  • A TLD called .porn
    Create a cyber red light district so you can:

    1: Know where to go when you want to get dirty.

    2: Be able to leave them out of your web search results when are searching for ANYTHING else.

  • .cc denotes Cocos Islands

    This [] has a list of ccTLD's

    Also you can register .cc's at []

    If brevity is the soul of wit this will be the wittiest speech ever. Thank-you.

  • Since TLD's are, as we all now agree, No Help Whatsoever, why don't we just get rid of them entirely? would just be "slashdot", and "" would just be "" (or "www.microsoft1" and "www.microsoft2" by late next year).

    If you really wanted to put something in your url to identify your organization type, you could always just put it at the beginning, like "".

    Does anybody see a problem with this?

  • I'm just wondering if anybody knows what happened to Generic Top Level Domain Memorandum of Understanding []?
  • I think this means I just blew my life savings. Last week I went out and bought $250,000 worth of the "Fuck you and your dot-com" tee shirts.

    Oh Sweet Mother of God.
  • On the front page of Network Solutions...

    Be sure to also register

  • by Improv ( 2467 ) <> on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:05PM (#1001484) Homepage Journal
    It seems to me that we don't really need anything
    more than what we have.... for example, why would
    we need .banc? Any bank is much more likely to
    get a .com than a .banc, especially b/c they
    couldn't say .banc without people misspelling it
    in their browser window..
  • by jeffg ( 2966 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:47PM (#1001485)

    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 html [] (gzipped text file)

    Pay particular attention to Field 2, Root Server Providers. Check out the Open Root Server Confederation [].

    While we're on this subject, a quick redux to the .god TLD... zone files and current status of .god registry [].

    ANYONE interested in domain policy (and the politics are Quite Interesting in this realm... surf the domain-policy mailing list archives [] (hosted by InterNIC).

  • by RayChuang ( 10181 ) on Thursday June 15, 2000 @04:06AM (#1001486)
    If the companies that give out registered DNS names on the Internet (Network Solutions,, and so on) can agree to a standard on how to give out names using the new TLD's, then we can save ourselves a lot of hassles on how to "block" unauthorized sites from children.

    I myself would propose this TLD for adult sites: .AOS (AOS means Adult-Only Site). Web browsers from the start can set the default so they can't log onto .AOS sites without first sending an encrypted password. For example, Playboy's web site can be divided into two parts, one the original for their general-interest material and the new playboy.aos for their adult-oriented material. It also means sites such as will have to switch to whitehouse.aos to avoid confusion with the domain.

    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.
  • If memory serves, .uucp doesn't represent any central registry -- if the mail software on the user's host machine knows the bang path [] to foo over UUCPNET [], it will translate fred@foo.uucp to quux!baz!bar!foo!fred.

    (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....)

  • by Sivaraj ( 34067 ) on Thursday June 15, 2000 @03:51AM (#1001488)
    A new organization - MINC [] - is being setup to make domain names multilingual. If you speak a language other than English, please check it out.
  • by 1010011010 ( 53039 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @07:42PM (#1001489) Homepage
    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.

  • by VonSnaggle ( 64586 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:36PM (#1001490)
    Wouldn't .mp3 just piss off the RIAA! -if common-sense was common wouldn't everyone have it?
  • by paulproteus ( 112149 ) <> on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:23PM (#1001491) Homepage
    Country TLDs are useful. So are .com, .net, and .org -- each has a meaning.

    However, what really is the purpose of .god? I mean, really, it is just a waste. Sure, getting i-am.god or *.is.god would be nice, but churches can use .org. There is no need to add to the confusion many newbies suffer when going online.

    "Hey, my favorite website doesn't work!"
    "Did you make sure to type in .net?"
    "Oh. It works."

    The panel itself may be a good idea, if only to restrict frivolous TLDs.
  • by yarmond ( 114187 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:31PM (#1001492)
    I can't see this being a good thing for anyone except Network Solutions and the other registrars. It's just a way to sell every corporation some more domain names so they can "protect" themselves from people who might put up something they don't like.

    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, but also, and

    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...

  • by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @08:06PM (#1001493) Journal

    Yes, then the International Association for Dyslexic People could register dp.qb

    None of them would *ever* find it.

    The regular .sig season will resume in the fall. Here are some re-runs:
  • by SlushDot ( 182874 ) on Thursday June 15, 2000 @07:23AM (#1001494)
    More importantly than whatever final list ICANN comes up with, there needs to be a Black Flag of sorts within DNS. An anarchistic wastland where all domains are first come, first served, all registrations final, and over which all lawsuits are prohibited.

    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.

  • by Colin Smith ( 2679 ) on Thursday June 15, 2000 @03:09AM (#1001495)

    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 []

  • by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @07:20PM (#1001496) Homepage
    We've been hearing about new TLDs for, oh, at least an eternity. Maybe even two.

    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? is gone (to a domain name camping asshole, of course), and who's ever going to have patience to try .net, .org, .ca ,.xxx, .god and whatever other .tlds are available?

    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. for sale. My god.

  • by DragonHawk ( 21256 ) on Thursday June 15, 2000 @03:41AM (#1001497) Homepage Journal
    Wonderful. More TLDs. That's a lousy answer to a problem that isn't the real problem. Two strikes at once. Great job.

    Here is why it is the wrong answer: It won't work. Right now, companies (and squatters) register,, and, "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 / (the root, C:\ for Windows folks), you shouldn't try and put every entity in the universe under .COM.

    There are two hierarchies I can think of: By category, and by location.

    By category would mean that instead of, we would get 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 or or 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

    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, and the problem is solved.

    Yes, it does mean Microsoft would be 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 .COM domains. Make people use the system put in place to solve this problem over ten years ago.
  • by cjkarr ( 23970 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @08:21PM (#1001498) Homepage
    While I think that the inclusion of new TLDs is a good idea, I am against anything that is too finely done.

    Imagine, a .protest domain. You are one of the vendors of filtering and blocking software. Anything against the norm? Why not just block .protest. Same goes for companies and/or oppressive governments with nasty firewalls.

    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.

  • by LLatson ( 24205 ) on Thursday June 15, 2000 @04:27AM (#1001499) Homepage
    But how do you "require" anyone on the net to do anything at all?

    As soon as you start limiting what content can be put on each domain, the internet as we know it is gone.

  • by / ( 33804 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @07:29PM (#1001500)
    I would've thought it would have been Microsoft who'd be asking for a .rob TLD. You know, right up there with .rape, .pillage, .extend, and .extinguish.
  • That's NOT a joke !
    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 [] 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: - for nutritionists - with 12 domains registered - for sociologists - with 3 domains - for zoologists - (no that's not a joke !) And it has *1* (one) domain registered since it was created on may 1999

    Obviously people just ignored these ridiculous TLDs and continued registering (that has 244594 domains registered - 92.69% of all Brazilian domains) You can check with your own eyes [] the Brazilian TLD's and their stats directly from Fapesp, the only Brazilian registrar (at least they work far better than Network Slowlutions). As its in Portuguese, Babelfish may help.

    Amazing, isn't it ?

  • by A nonymous Coward ( 7548 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @10:16PM (#1001502)
    Lots of 'mericans would say any partial nudity belongs n the .xxx domain; lots of people elsewhere in the world laugh at that. Lots of 'mericans would say violence *doesn't* belong in .xxx; lots of others would disagree. My brother-in-law will happily rent the goriest action videos for his kids, with profanity, gore, mayhem, etc, but it better not show much in the way of nudity.

    It wouldn't work. It would just create more and more arguments.

  • by NMerriam ( 15122 ) <> on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:41PM (#1001503) Homepage

    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...
  • by seebs ( 15766 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:25PM (#1001504) Homepage

    "aitch tee tee pee colon slash slash slash dot dot slash dot slash slash".

  • by JamesSharman ( 91225 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:34PM (#1001505)
    I actually think the best suggestion for a new top level domain in the document is a TLD devoted to material of an 'adult' nature. Such a domain is one of the few I think would gain rapid support among it's target community. We all hope the Internet will remain relatively free of control, but the nay-sayers continue to point out that the net is full of pornography etc. A new TLD for new sites and hopefully a reasonable degree of migration of existing adult material will serve to provide a degree of separation. The average adult (male at least) probably knows where the local adult store is in town and can make the choice for themselves. With a designated TLD the same will hopefully become true of the internet, this I feel will weaken the argument of the censors without reducing freedom. And besides, if your that way inclined you'll know where all the good stuff is.
  • by ruin ( 141833 ) on Wednesday June 14, 2000 @06:16PM (#1001506) Homepage
    I think the most obvious and necessary new TLD is .xxx, for online vendors of pornography. It would be a distinction appreciated by both lovers and haters of porn. Is there any other subject matter for which such a strict distinction exists? Imagine...

    "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)


To write good code is a worthy challenge, and a source of civilized delight. -- stolen and paraphrased from William Safire