Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×
The Internet

ICANN Selects New Top Level Domains 291

Azog, joined by a bevy of like-mindeds, wrote with the news: "ICANN has selected several proposals for new TLDs for further negotiation. The selected entries, and their proposed TLDs, are: JVTeam (.biz), Afilias (.info), Global Name Registry (.name), RegistryPro (.pro), MDMA (.museum), SITA (.aero), and NCBA (.coop)." Here is the unanimously accepted resolution. cyrdog points to Wired's coverage, and pavelivanov points to the story at CNET. And as several people have pointed out, .web is conspicously absent, even though it seems like a shoo-in. Someone, somewhere is going to get that one day ... Update: 11/17 09:48 PM by H :Check out SatireWire's coverage as well *grin*.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ICANN Selects New Top Level Domains

Comments Filter:
  • I have been communicating with the USPTO and DoC about the problem of trademarks on the Internet.

    The World Intellectual Piracy Organization (WIPO.org.uk [wipo.org.uk]) has been telling them what they already know.

    To make trademarks lawful requires:

    1. TM identifier - example .REG

    2. Classification identifier - example .food

    3. Country identifier - example .us

    So dominos pizzas in USA would be domino.food.us.reg

    They may not like it, but it is the only way to make trademarks comply with law.

    Dot coms, dot biz etc. can all still be used. Dot REG would act as certificate of authentication.
  • Its called IP address, stupid!

    No it's not, asshole! IP addresses of hosts within a network change, a naming system needs to stand one layer higher to allow the owner of the network some flexibility. IP addresses have all sorts of problems for use as host names, multiple hosts per IP, multiple IPs per host and so on.

    And also because when you just hear about a company 'Underplunder, Inc.' you don't have to suck out of your finger some name, but can just try underplunder.com and you might get your match...

    Which is exactly why the current system is breaking down. What if there is another Underplunder Inc? The current system assumes that there is one such name per country plus a handful of "special" ones which get .net, .com or .org. This was fine when the net was small but is just useless under the assumption that everyone has, or can have, their own site. How many names for companies or people are there? There must be duplication in any letter-based system.

    The assumption that people can't remember numbers is wrong (well, for most of us, anyway), as shown by telephone numbers, and numbers avoid almost all the problems with the current DNS.

    Wake up: DNS is disintegrating as we speak and ICANN is not helping. What do you think is the solution?

    TWW

  • Well, certainly ".kids" has some difficulties, but I don't see what's wrong with .adult or .xxx. I don't think they need to be enforced strictly (running all the pornographic .coms to .adult for example), but I do think there are porn merchants out there who would move to the new TLD. For one it gives people a better idea of the content of a site, for another, it can help parents keep their kids from looking at smut online (not that it'll stop them, but it would help).
  • That's the DUMBEST bunch of TLDs I've ever heard. Cripes, they had a chance to make some truly cool/interesting new domains that would make people actually want to get non-dot-com names, thereby helping those businesses as well as reducing load on the top level serers.

    Instead, they cluttered the namespace with a bunch of lame crap. Who put them in charge, again?
  • The real problem is the lack of accountability with ICANN. When they were set up a board of directors was appointed who had to step down after a certain period. In an attempt to show openness they launched the At-Large campaign where web users could register and elect new directors.

    So they had the election and discovered that the web users voted in the strongest critics of ICANN. Oh, dear, a problem, the ICANN board got around this by tweeking the interpretation of the rules such that the new directors would be unable to vote until after the next AGM. They also voted themselves an extension of the time in which they can stay in office. There is even talk now about reducing the number of elected officials in the future. BTW I have an enormous respect for some of the current directors so don't tar them all with the same brush.

    There was a great article on Slashdot only a couple of days ago about an analysis of the domain dispute policy. This pointed out in no uncertain terms how the system favoured the complainer in that they could select the resolution body and surprise the bodies which ruled most frequently for the complainant got the most work.

    I am from the UK and have concerns about an organisation which is based in the US and subject to US laws controlling such an important area of the Internet as the actions of that body will be determined by what is regarded as acceptable to the residents of North America and not myself. With the existing .ORG, .COM and .NET (ignoring the others for the moment) domains there is little problem as there are no 'rules' about what someone can do with them after registration. With the new ones which are coming out things will be different. Consider museum, who decides what is permitted to be registered ? ICANN along with MDMA. There ***will*** be disagreements as to what contitutes a museum particually when different languages and national laws are involved. Can you see North Korea happily accepting the decision made by ICANN in regard to an application. Anyway who gives them the right to do this? - themselves.

  • According to the CNET site, the .name register will operate under the "Laws of England and Whales". Doesn't this discrimainate against Porpoises, Dolphins and other aquatic mammals? FP
  • I see a couple of useful TLDs that have been thrown out, however I haven't even seen a proposal put forward for .aol! I can't imagine a more useful TLD, it would make it so much easier to write all your filtering software. As soon as all usenet feeds and discussion groups, not to mention irc start dropping everything that comes from the .aol domain the average iq of the net would probably double overnight. Meanwhile everything inside .aol would have their own 'value added' services to keep them satified with 'the internet' still so everyone would be happy,\.
  • If you want to see a really interesting point of view go to the The Berkman Center for Internet & Society [harvard.edu]. Scroll down to the Board Meeting, November 16 and launch the RealVideo Archive. Then, fast-forward to 06:08:00.

    Now, open the Real-Time Chat Log [harvard.edu] and do a search for: "Oh. My." (spoken by Christopher Ambler) and read along after watching the video! See as Vint Cerf goes into "attack-mode" and takes on Louis Touton and Joe Sims.

    Check out Christopher Ambler and the chat-room's reaction to the whole thing! Incredible and hilarious at the same time! Watch the look on the Board Member's faces when they realize that Afilias isn't going to get .web!

    Take that NSI !!!!!

  • And as several people have pointed out, .web is conspicously[sic] absent, even though it seems like a shoo-in.

    Why do some feel the need for a .WEB TLD?

    The TLD is not the correct logical place for it. It is completely redundant, the current domain model already has the capability of distinguishing a web server from a smtp or ftp server.

    Consider the URI http://www.website.web
    http:// - Web protocol
    www - Web server
    .website - Domain
    .web - web tld

    This is just ridiculous OTT.

    What happens when these domains want a ftp or smtp server? Do they use webmaster@website.web or ftp://ftp.website.web or do we add yet more TLD's i.e. .ftp and .smtp TLD's so we have webmaster@website.smtp and ftp://ftp.website.ftp

    Ah The whole idea of .web is just absurd.

    Someone, somewhere is going to get that one day ...

    I certainly hope not, because that is the day commercialism has finally over taken technical merit.

  • I work for you now Harry. You say drink coffee...I drink coffee.

    Agent Dale Cooper "Twin Peaks"
  • It would certainly be beneficial if they had created a .tm domain for trademarks. That would certainly clarify the way trademarks relate to web pages, and could provide a nice niche that prevented corporate trademark overprotection from spreading into comic and unrelated domain names.
  • never ... buy an uncensored BloodHound gang song again

    not all bad then :]
    t.

  • How about a .html domain to confuse people, and a .htm domain so that everyone has to register twice!!

    Better yet, how about a .exe domain!! My hands will tremble!

    (barf barf)

  • ok, I don't like .coop at all. It took me quite a bit of thinking about it before I realized that it should be .co-op, a domain for cooperatives. .coop just seems like a TLD suited for chickens and I don't know too many chickens who use computers.
    _____________
  • I don't think that having a domain name for this is useful. Bluetooth and other technologies will certainly evolve protocols for tackling all of these examples and more, and they probably won't have anything to do with domain names.
  • The DNS-system scales very well for the exact reason that it's heirarchical. As of now there is 248 TLD's (DNS & BIND, Poul Albitz and Cricket Liu, O'Reilly Books) and DNS is not even close to being the bottleneck.
    That being said, I don't believe it's viable to have arbitrary TLD's. It would cause even more disputes over who gets which name. And a popular TLD would need to be hosted on a solid NS. I doubt most ordinary (and yes, ultra-geeks are included here) people have the ability, bandwidth and hardware to do this.
    And for the keyword idea.. It all comes down to the same as .com: "Owning" a word. Who gets "Sun" as a keyword? "Linux"? "Windows"? So either way we're doomed..
  • that in the future we'll see .kitkat, .smarties and .yorkie as well??

    (Note - only UK slashdotters will understand this. Aero is a popular UK chocolate bar).

  • I want to register
    • MicrosoftEndUserLicenseAgreementsMakeGood.femini nenapkins, and
    • CluelessPalmBeachVoterBallotsMakeGood.femininena pkins

    Do you think I'll get sued?

    --

  • People, IME, tend to be good at associating names with things and less good at associating numbers-- which is why we name, rather than number, files... and cities and computers and children. (The only exception is the telephone system, and even there, people advertise using names of the form 1-800-FOOBAR-7.) I think we'd be losing something valuable if we changed names to numbers:

    • ever worked at a site which names its machines things like mercury, phoenix, orion, or charon [isi.edu], as opposed to say, mac1 or pc177? and tried to remember which machine was which?
    • Remember FidoNet addresses and how much harder they were to remember than DNS names?

    And so we rather than try to resolve the dispute, we decide they're not to be trusted with it, and lose all this? Such a move would be restricting easy access to the net to those of us who are trained to find it easy to work with and remember apparently random strings of digits. Yes, your solution works... but it appears to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  • What a retarded selection of new TLDs.

    At least "aero" is intuitive ... the rest are pretty damn stupid.

    .pro ??

  • Sorry, (makes mental note: read what you are writing).
    Correction follows:
    .arpa's closed? I got 7 hits from an .apra domain last week to my website.
    Richy C. [beebware.com]
    --
  • You're correct, of course -- there are more record stores in Fargo than that. We also have a movie theatre that might show an NC-17 movie every now and again, too. But the situation is not as rosy as you paint. You really don't find NC-17 or unrated movies at Blockbuster or at the local theatre chain. You're really not going to find an uncut Eminem or Bloodhound gang album at Target or Wal-Mart.

    People who reluctantly agree with "voluntary labeling" are often very, very suprised what type of crap actually ends up getting labled. They're also very suprised when that labled stuff really does become difficult to find. Everyone thinks "voluntary labeling won't be so bad. They'll only label the really nasty bad stuff. They won't go overboard and label anything remotely offensive." Then, they're suprised when a movies Crash or Eyes Wide Cut gets "bad" labels stuck on.

    Then, they think "well, the label is there to warn parents. Major content distributors won't start indiscriminantly filtering out anything with a label. Thats not what the labels are for!" Then, they're suprised when providers like Blockbuster and WalMart and the major theatre chains put a block on anything with the label.

    If you don't think the same thing would happen with .xxx sites, you haven't been paying attention. A lot of site we would never consider porn will be labled .xxx, and a lot of major carriers will block those sites. It will happen just like it happened with "voluntary" X and NC-17 ratings on movies, and with Tipper Gore's "voluntary" record labels. And people will be suprised.
  • by Pope ( 17780 )
    MDMA is Ecstacy!

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • Exactly, a wodge of domain names chosen by committee, thus ensuring a lack of completeness, consistency or forethought. Why .museum and no .gallery or .theatre, and why not put such specialized ones under a general .inst (institute) ?? I'll be intrigued to see how john.smith.name gets allocated too... ( I can't see any acceptable way to disambiguate that works, you won't be able to guess someone's domain without some sort of unique ID ) Why can't .coop be under .org anyhow? I thought that was what it was for! The whole thing is ill-thought out and betrays a lack of any common sense... We are doomed!
  • These are in fact the WORST domain names that are so short-sighted, people are gonna start registerting troll names( compaq.contoura.aero - the only website named after a laptop!) for fun.

    I mean, with .aero, wont most .aero sites be named after big airline companies? They might as well just stick to .com or that even more redundant .biz. I doubt many ultralight aviation enthusiasts are gonna use it.

    .coop? WTF? I'm thinking grocery stores, or better yet c.everett.coop - shit, I better buy that one before Mr. Surgeon General gets it!

    Wouldnt .org be better than .museum? I mean, I don't see museums being more businessy, but more so educational and preservers of history.

    .pro. Uh, pro what? Can I just declare myself a .pro? I'll register sex.pro or counterstrike.pro, and i've just anonuced my superiority to the web! Really, we don't need a class-system for domain names on the web. If so, at least have .novice for people who want to register low-self-esteemed websites.

    .name? Uh. tha'ts like having 1-800-PHONE-NUMBER.

  • any ideas why the world's morality filter delimmas weren't solved with a simple suffix? it would have been so easy.
    ---
  • If .com, .org and .net hadn't been constructed in the first place and geographic TLD's had been used then much of the congestion that we have now wouldn't exist. Furthermore, if .net and .org really had been restricted to networks and non-profit organisations respectively, that would have reduced congestion in that namespace.

    Oh dear. I have just realised that this has turned into a "me too" post. Bugger.

  • why do new TLDs matter? big companies will sue for every usage of their name like guinness beer did.

    domain names like guinnessbeersucks.com should be legal. until this problem is addressed, we are all slaves.

  • by Kiss the Blade ( 238661 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:17PM (#618762) Journal
    ...why they don't have an infinite number of Top Level domains? Or at least, as many as people desire. Is there some technical reason for this? Or do ICAAN have some unknown interest in keeping the TLD's to a minimum?

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

  • > and NCBA (.coop)

    Do chickens really *need* their own TLD?

    Chris Mattern
  • What a huge raft of crap. ICANN sucks!
  • Several programs, such as tld lookups, dont consider strings longer than 3 chars to be valid TLD's. Of course, it's possible to port them, but it's annoying as hell.
  • .tm [iana.org] is the code for Turkmenistan [yahoo.com].

    [TMB]
  • Those are some of the worst selections I ever expected, even from ICANN. One of the best reasons for new top level domains is that, in addition to more name space, it allows the opportunity for a bit of self-classification--much like .com, .net, and .org did originally.

    [SARCASM].museum? there's a broad ranging area worthy of a TLD of its own.[/SARCASM] Yes, it's great that museums could have their own web identifier, sure. But it's simply not a big enough segment of the net population to warrant a TLD. Even if there are a million museums in the world that are registering I wouldn't consider it a big enough market.

    The same arguement can be said for .aero, and probably for .coop.

    .biz? ok, we need an alternative .com...but can we sound any more unprofessional. Let's be really catchy and groovy with our domain names! yeah, right. Which is going to seem more professional to you, company.biz or company.com? .bus would be better, and even that's not that good. there are plenty of better alternatives.

    .pro? not really sure what its for..based on the company that submitted it i guess its for their own name recognition..but .pro[fessional] at least has some merit.

    .name and .info. ok, i don't have a problem with those. they're much more along the lines of what we need.

    .xxx, .kids, .web, .news(!), .radio, .hist, .art(!) (much better than .museum)...all of these would be able to be put to much better use than .aero and .museum. but no, we can't have .xxx, that would mean that we acknowledge that there's PORN on the web, and even (gasp!), provide a way to easily filter out a lot of it if one wanted to.

    bureaucracy at work. *sigh*.

    -chad/entropi

  • by YoJ ( 20860 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:20PM (#618768) Journal
    Is it just me or does this seem like a weak start for new TLDs? My guess is that these new TLDs will become the ghetto of domain names. Real businesses will have .com domains, and wannabes will have .biz. But new TLDs are always good, because they remove an artificial scarcity that damages small websites.
  • As an FYI, SITA [sita.com] is one of the largest and oldest computer network companies in the world that until recently exclusively served the worlds airline industry.
    Given that most of the worlds airlines already have domain names, it will be interesting to see if there will be a shift to the .areo TLD.
  • The only new TLD we need is .sucks (or .sux for you 3-letter afficiendos)

    I'm sure you'll agree that would make life much easier for everyone.

  • This is silly. How many telephone numbers can you remember? That's why people have palm pilots and address books - to associate NUMBERS with NAMES. If I call my buddy Andy enough times, sure I'll remember the number - just like I know the IP addresses of my ISPs name servers. That's not true for most of the people I need to call from time to time, and not true for the majority of web sites I visit.

    Instituting this scheme would without a doubt result in numerous "real names" like services - proprietary name-to-number mapping sites that would be much worse than the current DNS system, which at least is global.

  • It is apparent from the nature and inconsistancy in the recently adopted TLDs that the DNS needs to be changed to help simplify the process of resolving a name to the desired address, and shift the DNS away for its bias toward the US.

    Maybe the DNS structure could be changed to shift responsibility to nationalities. One possibility may be something like 'host.subdomain.country' (similar to how it is outside the US now), where the subdomains would be '.com', '.org', etc., and optional, and designated by each country respectively. The DNS protocol could updated to append a country code to a DNS query if none was present before resolving the query or passing the query on. Which country code would be appended would depend on the physical origin of the request. The DNS works in a mannor similar to this now, and it would not be difficult to make this kind of system a standard part of how the DNS protocol works.

    By making the DNS structure the same for the US as for other countries, the need for one body to administer TLDs for all countries is greatly reduced. By instituting the procedure of appending the country domain to the domain name, things are simplified and there is backward compatability.

    The domain names from within the United States, for example, would look something like 'IBM.com.us' (or 'IBM.com' from within the US), 'IBM.info.us', 'IBM.net.us', or 'IBM.us'. United States government sites would look like 'whitehouse.gov.us', or 'whitehouse.us'.

    Each country would be free to create and administer its own subdomain structure (for better or worse) thus releiving one organization from the task of administering TLDs for many countries. The only real TLDs would be for countries.

    This, of course, would mean that an entity would have to register their domain in every country, but isn't that how trademarks work now, and isn't there an existing body of law to deal with conflicts arising from registering a trademark in use by somebody else in another country. This would releive ICANN from the task of figuring out who should be responsible for which '.com', '.biz' or '.org' TLDs for all countries.

    Whether this proposal makes sense or not, it would be better for DNS to be extended now rather than have it supplanted by some closed replacement. Given the direction (or lack thereof) the administering of TLDs is taking, this eventuality is becomming more likely. There is a genuine need to update the DNS.
  • uhhhhhmmmmm kind o' metal ain't it, boy?
  • Okay, so, now where do I go to register chicken.coop?!

  • 1- Breaking the 3 letter barrier unleashes all sorts of problems and confusion. Some people mentioned we should move toward the USENET naming conventions -- what do you think ICANN's list of TLDs signifies? .museum? .pro? smith.name? Yeah, it's not alt.sex.stories.hermaphrodite, but it's a big step in that direction. I forgot who said it, but someone quipped about how to explain all this to their grandma. It's a good observation about how complex and confused the namespace will get now. In the past, you could basically count on www.whatever.com, it's been a no-brainer. But if these new TLDs take off, where's the consistency? People can't read a simple presidential ballot, c'mon!

    I tend to disagree with you there. The primary function of DNS was to create a way to make it easier for humans to work with the growing number of hosts on the Internet. TCP/IP addresses were to hard to remember, so a number of systems evolved - two big ones were NIS and DNS.

    That being said, what do you think would happen if you asked someone what dot-com stands for? How about dot-int? Or dot-org? You and I know, but non-technical folk? Most probably don't have a clue what they mean. I'm sure all here would agree with me on that. Maybe a UUNET type naming scheming isn't exactly the answer either, but something easier can be done - base it on simpler TLD names.

    If I were a consumer and wanted to find a web site on Ford cars for example, what would I rather type that would make more sense to me? Probably

    ford.cars

    not

    www.ford.com

    Doing this rules out any other Ford company confusion because we know that we are looking for the ford company that makes cars. It also takes the hostname (typically www) out of the picture so that the user has less to type.

    Is this something that can already be accomplished in DNS (ford.cars). Yes, if they added the dot-cars TLD (for example). Why not dot-travel? Or dot-family? Or dot-adult? These make sense and it would be easier for the consumer.

    From experience, I can say that it is definitely possible, and would definitely be wanted by consumers.

    Furthermore, we can't just dump DNS because of the two single most important uses of the Internet Email and Web addresses. We've gotten everyone used to DNS, we must figure out a way to change it into something else. I think that by opening TLDs (as opposed to limiting them), is the beginning of the reform.

    Chris

    -= www.opendnstech.com =- [opendnstech.com]

  • people advertise using names of the form 1-800-FOOBAR-7.)

    Actually, this never happens in the UK. I don't know why it never caught on but there it is.

    And so we rather than try to resolve the dispute, we decide they're not to be trusted with it, and lose all this?

    It's not a matter of trust. You assume that disputes can be resolved. I say they can't. If there are two companies called "Toni's Pizzas" then one of them must backdown. Plus the reality is that lawyers have a vested interest in making suits on domain names and it is wishful thinking to say that this will ever stop or ever be fair. The richest litigant will always have too much power no matter what the rights and wrongs of the case.

    In a world with 6 Billion people using the net, names simply don't and can't work. The fact that ICANN is trying crap solutions does not mean that a good solution exists.

    ...remember apparently random strings of digits.

    They wouldn't be that random, if major companies and ISP's make up the first layer of the hierarchy then many numbers will start off the same, much as many phone number prefixes come up over and over again, which makes them into "memory blobs" which are easier to remember.

    ...but it appears to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

    I am worried that the baby is in the process of drowning.

    Such a move would be restricting easy access to the net to those of us who are trained

    Does having to use a phone book restrict access to the telephone? Web search engines could be complemented by an online phone directory-type system.

    How important is the naming system in finding sites at the moment? What percentage of sites are found through their content (ie using search engines) rather than typing in the url? I don't know but the information would be useful for this argument.

    IME many (not most) people find sites by typing the name of the site into a search engine (e.g. the type "www.fish4homes.com" into altavista). Sad, but true.

    Another solution would be to close down the TLDs (.com, .org etc) and enforce a multi-layered geographical system right down to town level (www.smithsbooks.bangor.ni.uk or www.smithsbooks.islington.london.uk) but: a) no one will run such a system as the amount of checking to enforce it is too much when net useage is growing as it is now, b) it actually leads to names which are probably harder than numbers to remember, and c) still leaves the question of individuals' sites in the same town open to question.

    When you think about this, ask yourself "how is the current system going to work when everyone in the 1st world has their own individual webpage which is permanently connected to the net?". This day will come, web connections will come with your 'phone one day and each connection will need a name in the DNS.

    TWW

  • yack, .name?

    .nom would have been much cooler...

    weave.nom maybe, weave.name -- never....

  • (1) Strict rules about who can register a domain-name in a particular TLD space (e.g., a .com _must_ be a _legitimate_ registered business, an .edu _must_ be an established and _accredited_ educational institution

    But at the same time only if there is a good reason for not having an apropriate geographic domain name. e.g. most of .edu would be better as .edu.us/.ac.us/etc.

    (2) each domain must be the _only_ domain owned by a specific business or other entity (no fair buying up everything that's similar, no registering multiple identities)

    There is a fine line between a company being "domain grabbing" and one which simply wishes to use it's normal trading identities. The line is especially blurred with a startup "e-business".
  • This proof of concept seems designed to prove that it is a pretty lame concept... These particular TLDs are quite lame. Of course, that probably won't stop people from buying them, for no good reason.

    Now, as for the TLDs *I* think should be registered, in true "I know more than they do" /. fashion. THESE TLDs would prove the concept AND maintain the spirit of the Internet:

    .cum - Then people who work at sex sites could casually mention that they work at "one of those .cums" and people would merely think they have a funny accent...

    .borg - For anyone who has been assimilated... you know, Microsoft ISVs, OEMs, developers, etc...

    .nut - For sites featuring rants, conspiracy theories, pictures of people's pets with captions drawn in using Microsoft Paint, etc.

    .kil - For Quake servers and towns named after Dutch rivers...

    .guv - For people who want to run their own countries but can't find one that will let them...
    also can be used by stereotyped British butlers...

    Also, since we know Aliens are among us, shouldn't we have planetary/stellar codes in addition to country codes?

    For more info go to: www.wecomeinpeace.mars

  • by jvj24601 ( 178471 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @08:04PM (#618791)

    .name Score -1, Silly This is probably the worse option for "personal" domains i can think of. Let alone sorting problems with two people having the same name (who gets the domain? the oldest?)

    Oldest? Of course not. The solution to who gets the domain will be the fairest, most equitable, most reasonable, and most common solution know to man.

    The person who can afford to hire the best lawyers.

  • Because in places like Canada, in order to get a .ca domain, you have to be nationally registered, which means you have a business office in more than one province or pay $200 to be nationally registered. Otherwise you get stuck with a lame .bc.ca or .ca

    An entirely sensible policy. Have the domain name give some clue as to where the company is and where it is likely to do business. Indeed there is a story that .de domain names were at one time understood by the (West) German post office. Thus if you put someone's email address on "snail mail" it would get to them.
  • Christmas Island [yahoo.com] is part of Australia. Remarkably, that means it is no where near Easter Island [yahoo.com]. Someone should do something about that.

    --
    $you = new YOU;

  • I mean really, come on! Give me some .ass!!!

    I can see it now...

    cocacolacaneatmy.ass
    ronaldmcdonaldtakesitinthe.ass
    billclintondoesnthavetopayforsome.ass
    icannneedstoremoveitsehadfromits.ass
    isuck.ass
    microsoft.ass

    Surely no one could be as asinine as to create TLDs like .museum, .coop, and .aero

    These people need to walk out of their offices and talk to real human beings (not lifeless bloodsucking marketing agents) and maybe, just maybe they'll ge their heads out of their .ass es
  • That's why people have palm pilots and address books - to associate NUMBERS with NAMES.

    Use bookmarks (or your Palm pilot!); I don't remember any more URLs than I do phone numbers.

    result in numerous "real names" like services - proprietary name-to-number mapping sites that would be much worse than the current DNS system, which at least is global.

    Why worse? The underlying number system would still be global. I have three telephone directories here, one county, one local business and one local general. It works fine and I don't have to use it if I don't want to. If I need non-local numbers I can get them from BT. On the web search engines can provide these services. What's the big deal? The fact that DNS is is global is it's biggest problem. The entire world's namespace needs more than one or two layers of hierarchy and the current DNS isn't giving it that, and never will. Global and useless DNS is still useless.

    I'm not saying this is because it was badly designed but it has been badly administered and is beyond repair. It could have worked, it should have worked, but assholes have been in control and fucked it up. Commercial interests will always do this to a system where the URLs are recognisable names (ie trademarks) and where the assignment of the names is not based on geography (whatever happened to .us?). Closing down the TLDs and leaving only the ccTLDs would help a lot, but it's never going to happen, certainly while people like ICANN are in charge.

    If you think text names for hosts is a system which will work fine for the next ten years then you're mad. It can't and won't; the trouble that we're having now with the namespace is just going to get worse.

    Looking further ahead, imagine a world with 3 billion sites, what are you going to do to DNS to make it work?

    Make a counter suggestion, or do you really think that the current system is fine?

    TWW

  • .aero - Why does the aerospace industry need their own TLD? What are they doing online (besides operating their own TLD registry) that merits a TLD more than, say, the banking industry?

    It looks as though ICANN's criteria as "Are we happy with the proposer operating as a TLD registry" rather than "Is their proposal sensible".
  • by Ron Bennett ( 14590 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @09:06PM (#618811) Homepage
    ICANN's new TLD choices are more lame than I'd expected. I figured on some heavy-hitting TLDs like .WEB and .NOM or even .TEL. Instead ICANN chose what amounts to token TLDs...because for all intensive purposes the new TLDs will have limited appeal and usefulness...for example:

    museum: How many people will actually use that TLD?
    Heck, many people can't even spell museum!

    biz: redundant to .COM and in the eye of some people .biz has negative connotations and will instill images of con artists and second rate businesses in their minds; many people will feel that real business uses .COM

    .info: Actually not a bad TLD...but certainly not a top TLD choice in my view since its appeal will be limited.

    .name: Terrible!! .NOM would have been a much better choice...why did ICANN pick .name over .nom??

    .aero: About as limited as .museum - why so many limited use TLDs...doesn't make sense to me.

    .pro: Seems redundant to .name in the sense that .pro is also aimed towards individuals - many people who register their name in .name will also do so in .pro.

    .coop: The most ridiculous TLD of the bunch...some ICANN folks flew the coop when they chose to approve this one...coop is a totally useless TLD.

    Bottom line is that .COM's dominance is not threatened in any way from these new TLDs...in fact the contrary will be true....COM will be more valuable and sought than ever before. Thanks again ICANN for keeping .COM #1!!
  • Bin is not hard coded for the ICANN roots and it is easy to change (very easy) but the difficulty is Windows. Any new DNS system has to face the fact that >80% of computers come with Windows and that the vast bulk of net users today are using Windows.

    How many Windows setups have any reference to the root servers. This is one of the things which MS has liked to pass off onto proper systems.
  • To make trademarks lawful requires:
    1. TM identifier - example .REG
    2. Classification identifier - example .food
    3. Country identifier - example .us
    So dominos pizzas in USA would be domino.food.us.reg


    In the case of a federal nation, such as the US you might need a sub national classification. Thus you'd have something like "domino.food.ny.us.reg"
  • if the companies that proposed .xxx and .movie had a sound business plan and the technical and administrative skills that ICANN felt that would be needed by a gTLD registry, then they might have been accepted.

    It is hard to think of a bunch of web-companies with better business plans than the porn sites; the more popular ones also have the best technical skills and admin systems on the web; they have to to cope with the traffic. So: why no .xxx?

    TWW

  • Like I said before in the last ICANN article [slashdot.org], why don't you go to ICANN's site and read why the .kids and .xxx applications were rejected [icann.com].

    They (*gasp*) actually do have reasons. And remember, this isn't a contest - "What would be the coolest new tld". There are proposals from individual companies to be based on their merits.
    ICANN did not say they disagree with the idea behind .kids and .xxx. They said they had reservations about the ability of the particular companies to implement and manage them _successfully_, both in regards to technical work and content management.

    But please, don't take my word for it, get it from the source...
  • ...as of November 1, 2000, the laws regarding .ca domain registrations have been changed: it's as open as .com now.
    Check Tucows.ca [tucows.ca] for a list of valid .ca registrars. And hurry! :)

    Pope

    Freedom is Slavery! Ignorance is Strength! Monopolies offer Choice!
  • From the article:
    New domains approved by the board are subject to approval by the Department of Commerce

    Nice to see the 'net has become an arm of the American Corporatist army - what the hell does the Commerce industry have to do with it? Maybe thats why you wont see .xxx or .sex they dont have any appeal to major industry - just evil pornography peddlers - g-darn sinners all.
  • There apparently was/is a "rouge" DNS server handling the .web TLD, though not everyone elses DNS servers point to it. Some do, apparently, thus creating the "unofficial" status.
  • by Speare ( 84249 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:24PM (#618859) Homepage Journal

    Apparently, it's not just a matter of their saying "gee, a .foo would be cool," but it's a matter of giving the new .foo over to the person/organization who submitted the proposal.

    They dropped .xxx and .kids because the applicants weren't competent to run a registry service.

    So, it didn't come down to logical divisions, but to registrars. Just like .mil is managed by one organization (DoD), so would .xxx or .kids.

    Personally, I am glad ".kids" didn't make it. It's an idiomatic word. (Is it related to that infamous .cx image?). I also prefer the three-letter ones, just in consistency.

    I also didn't like the .web thing. Isn't the www. convention enough? Or would Foobar Inc., need to move their web presence to some new toplevel domain?

  • hmm.. I wouldn't exactly put museums as educational. there are museums of the weidest things, and although I would probably learn something from going to say the dinky toy museum or the piggybank museum, I would hardly call it educational.

    //rdj
  • by nagora ( 177841 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @11:57PM (#618870)
    The basic problem with DNS is the fact that the host names are in letters, which make up words, which make up names, which make up law suits. Not to mention the simple clashes between genuinely same-named companies and individuals.

    I can remember my phone number, even though it is 11 digits long with the UK area code, and my computer can remember numbers much longer than that. This is a hint to the solution. Give hosts numbers rather than names. IP addresses, of course, don't work as they change, so a central register of numbers needs to be set up, which in itself is an issue as power corrupts (see ICANN).

    I'm thinking of a system where there is a string of digits separated by dots (eg 1.3412.1823), where the initial number would indicate a continent, then the following groups of numbers would be networks of machines, until the final number (1823 in this example) would be a specific machine in the second last network (3412 in the example).

    The original authority would be allowed to assign network numbers in the individual continents for a fairly large one-off lifetime fee. The owners of a network number would then be free to assign numbers within their own space at whatever fee they like, but with the provision that the right to sell subnet numbers gets transferred to anyone they assign a number to. So the owner of 1.3412.1823 could assign 1.3412.1823.1 , .2, .3 etc to whoever they liked. Such reselling would be required to be on the same on-off lifetime fee basis (although the fee might be different) as the top level authority.

    This way the number resolution can still work in much the same way as name resolution does now, with zones of authority and the work of resolving a number to an IP address is shared out as it is now.

    With the top level fee being large, the next level would mostly be ISP's who make money back by selling on at a lower fee per number.

    The separation between IPs and host "names" is maintained and ALL the crap about who owns trademarks and shit is lost. Think about it: all the disputes are gone, especially if network owners are required to assign in sequential order.

    A distributed system for the very top level would be nice to prevent abuse of power, but perhaps the organisation set up to run it could be held in some sort of trust rather than being a private company. IANAL.

    I personally think that something needs to be done or there's only about 5 years life left in the web before the whole thing is bogged down in disputes and namespace is saturated.

    TWW

  • So how often will (or can) ICANN meet and add new TLD's?

    Once a week? Once a year? Never again?

    Other people have already asked, but I'm also curious, is there a technical reason to limit TLD's or is it just plain' ol' politics?

  • Seems as if most of the new TLD's either reflect the interests of business groups, or are controlled by business groups. With the possible exception of the museum TLD.

    Noticably lacking are any TLD's reserved for criticism of large trademark holders -- i.e. the .sucks proposal [wired.com] that would have allowed legitimate criticism sites to avoid specious trademark infringement lawsuits (remember Verizonreallysucks.com [2600.com]?)

    At least it has dawned upon the sage minds of ICANN that 3-4 TLD's constitutes an artificial scarcity. Perhaps today's decision opens the door for future domains that represent broader constituencies.

    Sincerely,
    Vergil

  • If .xxx existed several currently profitable filtering software companies - who I'm sure contribute to ICANN in any way possible - would lose a lot of money.

    Can we say Collusion
  • People will continue to register each site under every TLD they can get their hands on.

    It gets worse. I got some NSI spam within the past week or so offering a discount to people who register the corresponding .net and .org to go along with their .com.

  • by MathJMendl ( 144298 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:29PM (#618895) Homepage
    I was actually looking forward to the new domains. I thought they would create some good ones that might be worth using. I find these new ones to be most illogical, however. Except for .biz and .pro, they are all over three letters! Judging from how unsuccessful .us has been due to its long extensions (see nic.us [nic.us] to see how long they are; domainname.city.state.us), you would think that they'd learn. What about .web? And how about .porn or .xxx, which would finally make it easy to create filters that didn't have large rates of misblocking pages while not blocking all pages that they are supposed to (see peacefire.org [peacefire.org])? I could have done a better job than them and I'm just a teenager.

    The whole point of this was to get rid of the congestion that has overtaken .com, .net, and .org. There is no way that creating extensions that only apply to a small percentage of people will work. We need to get rid of this appointed web authority.
  • People will continue to register each site under every TLD they can get their hands on. Government will continue to award sites based on trademark. Same old mess, some new scrambling for all the "sure-fire winner" names among the brokers.

    What I want to know is, why bother with TLDs at all? Why not just arbitrary strings, with spaces and punctuation?

    --------
  • Also, remember what happened to Usenet? I dunno about you, but alt.alien.vampires.flonk.flonk.flonk isn't what I'd call a good use of that service.
  • What drugs is this author smoking? I was reading the Wired Article [wired.com] and ran into this little nugget of "information":
    The Domain Name System has not seen the introduction of new generic top-level domains since the mid-1990s when dot-net, dot-com and dot-org were added.

    Since then, a number of country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) have been added -- .ps for the Palestinian Authority was the latest of these -- but the number of general-purpose TLDs of the dot-com variety has remained static.
    Maybe they entered the mainstream consciousness in the mid-1990s, but they were around a decade earlier! RFC 920 [canberra.edu.au] (dated October 1984) defined .COM, .ORG and severel others, along with the 2-letter ISO country-code scheme for ccTLDs. Although .NET isn't mentioned, the Network Solutions WHOIS server shows that .NET was created [networksolutions.com] on January 1, 1985 along with .COM [networksolutions.com] and .ORG [networksolutions.com] . The .US domain was created [networksolutions.com] almost immediately afterwards, on February 15, 1985. The international domain .INT was created [networksolutions.com] later, on November 3, 1988.

    Created in the mid-1990s, indeed. Try a little fact-checking next time. (I personally remember using sites such as "ftp.sun.com" and "uunet.uu.net" in 1987.)
  • TLDs like:

    .perv - Most of the net falls under this one...
    .orgy - For those special clustering solutions
    .dot - For those who still have ham radio licences.
    .dash - For the rest of the Morse Code freaks
    .netnazi - For all those people who want to act like the French government.
    .post - So I can get "first.post".

  • by bellings ( 137948 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:37PM (#618932)
    I agree -- there should definately be .xxx, and it should be strictly enforced through the force of law. And any site that habitually links to pornographic material should be forced into that domain, so that we wouldn't have to see it.

    For example, one website that should be prevented from finding its way into any clean, god fearing home is this one [slashdot.org] -- you would not believe some of the filth [goatse.cx] and perversion [rotten.com] that is constantly being linked to from that site.

    And I know that all of the hard-core anti-porn crusaders would agree with me on this, too -- I look forward to the day when viewing evil, bad, rotten sites is difficult, in exactly the same way listening to evil, bad, rotten songs, or watching evil, bad, rotten movies is getting difficult up here in Fargo, ND.

    I look forward to the day when ISP's are all large, scared multi-national corporations, filtering content based on almost arbitrary labels. It works so well with the only "record stores" left around here (like Wal-mart and Target), and it works so well with the homogonized movie theatre chains, too. I feel so cacooned and protected, knowing I'll never see an NC-17 movie or buy an uncensored BloodHound gang song again. I will be even safer when I couldn't view bad websites even if I wanted to.

    And I know that my definition of "bad" will be the same as yours. It just has to be! I know exactly what you shouldn't be seeing or listening too!
  • by FFFish ( 7567 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:37PM (#618936) Homepage
    What a *great* way to keep the money flowing in, eh? It must be getting pretty darn difficult to register any reasonable sort of domain names (ie. single or paired words that make sense) these days.

    Well, the whole market is opened up again. The domain squatters will throw a pile of money at the registrars, who will kick money back to ICANN.

    And then the trademark disputes will begin, enriching the lawyers.

    And most of the rest of us will be left out of the loop, 'cause we were to slow to jump in at the start. :*)

    --
  • by Lazarus Short ( 248042 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:37PM (#618939) Homepage
    As far as technical reasons go, there is the potential for the root nameservers to become overloaded, both in terms of number of hits, and in terms of memory needed to store all the TLD's. However, the COM nameservers are already very stressed out as it is, so the odds are that things will get better rather than worse.

    The real reason we don't have infinite TLD's though is that we'd just be moving the problem up a level. Instead of fighting over "foo.com", Foo Inc. and Joe's Foo Emporium will fighto over ownership of the "dot foo" namespace. And now, they'll have to compete with the Foo Foundation (formerly foo.org) and Foo University (formerly foo.edu).

    No, the real solution here is twofold. We need

    • A Usenet style hierarchy [deja.com] By polluting the top level namespace with ".biz" et. al., we're actually moving away from this goal.
    • A Product/Concept/Keyword matching system. Search engines [google.com] and things like Real Names(tm) [realnames.com] are helpful, but the former aren't precise enough, and for the latter, I'd prefer an open system.


    --
  • I agree with ketilf. They're going to get huge amounts of flak whatever they do, and they're much better off starting with lame names that nobody cares about too much so they can fight their fights on those. They only get one chance to introduce .inc, .mp3, and .xxx, and they need a couple of practice rounds first.
    The main controversial one is .biz, since various Alternate Root groups have been using that for a while.
  • by p4r4d0x ( 201226 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:38PM (#618946)
    According to the AP story [excite.com], .web was not accepted because of "concerns that it has already been unofficially registered."

    ehhhh?


    __
  • >"You're not an Internet provider? Sorry, you can't have .net.

    That damned 'making a profit' thing getting in the way of logic and ideals, again.

    Seriously, what real business incentive would NSI have for enforcing TLD guidelines?

    >Instead, we get crap like "Register your domain in ALL these different TLD's so nobody can steal it!"

    Wow, they really messed up, huh? Instead of having the overhead of reviewing and rejecting applicants that don't qualify for a particular TLD, they simply get 3x the revenue from many customers.

    Seriously (again), I agree from a logical POV that we'd be better off (the users of the internet, that is) had NSI been required to strictly enforce the distinctions between com, org and net - but it's unrealistic to criticize them for having not done so seeing as how their reason for existance is to make a profit (maximize revenue, control costs, generate a return for investors, etc).
  • My monkey-brain powered arm could have picked better TLDs!

    -gerbik
  • (conspiracy mode on) "In 1997, an international ad-hoc committee recommended creating seven suffixes, but they were never adopted. A year later, the Commerce Department designated the newly formed ICANN to take over the discussions and debates over addressing. "

    Interesting that the u.s. once again in/directly has its thumb on the "world" wide web....

    (conspirace mode)

  • Well, I watched the webcast (actually, the IRC transcript of it).

    It looked to me like the reason .xxx and .kids were rejected was that ICANN wasn't sure how the policies could be enforced... Filtering? Constant inspections by the registrar? What about varying community standards from one country to another?

    It just seemed too ambiguous. Similar problems seemed to be an issue with other proposals, like geographic (.geo) and telephony (.tel).

    -----
    PS. This was my very first slashdot submission to ever be accepted. Woohoo!


    Torrey Hoffman (Azog)
  • I agree. For instance, how many websites .aero are there going to be, even if it includes the aerospace and the commercial airlines? Is it really worth the effort of porting existing apps to recognize domains like this.

    And what's up with .coop and .pro? .web at least make a lot of sense as, in my opinion .health or .sex or .xxx, even .kids

    It also would be interesting for non-admins like me to know what would it take to have an unlimited gTLDs. I'm surprised the registrars didn't came up with that idea as there would be a whole lot of money involved in selling any kind of domain name, people would go nuts buying all sorts of combinations. Not that that would be a good thing but it would surely be interesting to watch.

  • Because in places like Canada, in order to get a .ca domain, you have to be nationally registered, which means you have a business office in more than one province or pay $200 to be nationally registered. Otherwise you get stuck with a lame .bc.ca or .ca
  • DNS is a heirarchical namespace. It only scales as well as it does (which is iffy, but still works) because of the way the heirarchy scales. If you upped the number of TLD's to even a number like 2000, I would imagine that the DNS scaling problems would cause DNS to be the net's main bottleneck, instead of bandwidth as it is today.

  • by b0z ( 191086 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:53PM (#618971) Homepage Journal
    I just hope I can be the first person to try to get the chicken.coop domain name. WOOHOO!
  • by ketilf ( 114215 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:54PM (#618972) Homepage
    A complaint a lot of the people who are posting here are making, is that "what about the .tld_I_like, why didn't they add that?". ICANN are not looking to introduce all the TLDs that will be introduced, this is a proof of concept. They are trying for the first time ever to introduce new TLDs, and they are worried about the stability of the internet, because, for example, if the people in charge of a TLD are not capable of keeping their DNS servers up all the time, you will face instability. Also, the extreme rush for registrations once these new TLDs are opened are a matter of great concern for ICANN. This rush could take down a registry that is not very well prepared and very capable of handling these registrations.

    If the introduction of new TLDs works this time, maybe your favourite TLD will be introduced next time, and maybe from then on, TLDs will be introduced more often.

    Also, someone asked why there has to be limits on TLDs, and not an infinite number. This is because you have to have the root-servers on the internet where a name lookup can start if you are looking up a name, and the way DNS works is to cache lookups around the net, since it is hierarchical, thus alleviating the root-servers' workload. The stability of the root-servers are actually essential to the stability of the internet as it is used today.

  • The "real reason" you give is easy to solve -- don't let anyone have control over TLDs -- anyone can create them, but then, anyone can register any domain within the new TLD.

    I *would* like to see a usenet-style hierarchy, but it's a bit late for that.

    --

  • Not so. Since the DNS is hierarchical, it'd scale very well. It might be necessary to add a new layer of servers between the root and the rest, but that wouldn't be difficult -- and probably wouldn't really be necessary.

    --

  • by MathJMendl ( 144298 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @04:58PM (#618985) Homepage
    That's a good point, but I think that's what the domain names preceding the .TLD is for. Sites that have .com .org and .net are pretty general and I think it's good that anyone can register them. If there were only little ones like .museum not much congestion would be eliminated and there wouldn't be places to go for people that didn't fit in a little category. I think it would be good to add some that would apply to medium groups of people like .radio (or .tv if there weren't already one with the high prices). What we're talking about here is the difference between several, consistant medium ones as opposed to a few tiny ones that are so obscure that nearly no one will use them.
  • by LauraLolly ( 229637 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @05:30PM (#618991)
    Here I thought dot-slash would be the perfect TLD for discussion groups, bulletin boards, news nets, etc..

    Of course, there is the little matter of how nice guys that don't copyright names could have trouble with infringement...

  • by juliao ( 219156 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @05:40PM (#618993) Homepage
    IMHO, the accepted proposals are very, very bad choices, as far as domain names go. And that is the matter, isn't it? What TLDs to support, not _who_ is going to support them.

    Let me moderate them one by one:

    • .biz Score 1, Redundant A dot-com wannabe? What does this entail, other than having the people that already own dot-com trying to sue for the dot-biz?
    • .info Score -1, Redundant Hmm, i wonder what this one if for? Any use i can think of for this one can be better served by info.domain.something...
    • .name Score -1, Silly This is probably the worse option for "personal" domains i can think of. Let alone sorting problems with two people having the same name (who gets the domain? the oldest?), i don't really think this is going to be very popular. I wouldn't want one, would you? IMHO they should have gone for .home, .ind (for individual, or independent, or whatever you want it to mean) or something of the kind.
    • .pro Score 4, Interesting This looks like it can actually be used to some effect. Of course, if it's targeted at professionals of some sort, i wonder if it is going to achieve its objectives. I see a lot of www.windows.pro domains popping up for magazines, companies, and so on. But that's probably what they want anyway, to sell domain names, right? Being useful to people is for sissies...
    • .museum Score -1, Troll dot-what? Is anyone here in their right minds? How many of those are there going to be? 100? 200? 5000? What's next? dot-church? Too limited, too long, too hard to remember if there are only going to be a few of them.
    • .aero Score -1, Redundant Too limited. Too self-serving. Too redundant. Except if it's meant as a domain for airheads...
    • .coop Score 2, Interesting This one could be interesting, but isn't this covered by .com or .org already? It could prove limited in usage.
    In general, the new domains are either redundant or too limited in usage. The criteria for appraisal of the proposals were not, in my oppinion, in the best interest of the Internet Community. ICANN could have started off a whole lot better.

    I always knew I was going to miss Jon Postel, i just didn't know I was going to miss him this much.

  • by the red pen ( 3138 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @05:55PM (#619006)
    • .kids [and] .tel ... seemed too ambiguous.
    Yeah, what's to stop me from putting up a website with the URL:

    http://sex.with.kids

    ...and its companion site:

    http://promise.not.to.tel

    Nothing can stop me. I'm evil.

  • by Huusker ( 99397 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @05:59PM (#619010) Homepage

    If you read the application [icann.org], the second level will be

    • .med - Medicine
    • .law - Legal
    • .arg - Agriculture
    • .ins - Insurance
    • .fin - Finance
    • .aer - Aerospace
    • .rx - Pharmaceutical
    • .trv - Travel
    • .art - Arts & Entertainment
    • .pub - Publications
    • .auto - Automotive
    • .npo - Nonprofit
    • .acct - Accounting
    • .trans - Transportation
    • .util - Utilities

    So it is really more like a Usenet-style name system. Ex: ford.auto.pro, citibank.fin.pro, northwest.aero.pro, etc.

  • ICANN seems to be drifting, rudderless (from so many conflicting agendas, i.e., corporate arm-twisting, academic waffling, etc.) into the rocks on a lee shore. This ain't no way to run a world, folks. They need to either find some principles, and the backbone to make them stick, or... admit failure (declare victory?) and get out of the business.

    What's needed? Well, a few things - or so, at least, it seems to me: (1) Strict rules about who can register a domain-name in a particular TLD space (e.g., a .com _must_ be a _legitimate_ registered business, an .edu _must_ be an established and _accredited_ educational institution, etc.); (2) each domain must be the _only_ domain owned by a specific business or other entity (no fair buying up everything that's similar, no registering multiple identities); (3) speculative domain-registration should be outlawed (establish a business legally, _then_ register the domain-name); (4) establish rules (with teeth!) to suppress trademark, brand-name, and typo-squatting abuses.

    If ICANN doesn't get its act together in these areas, moves towards national legislation and interminable negotiations about international agreements (worse messes) will be inevitable. ICANN needs to be drafting proposed legislation in all venues, worldwide, to define the Internet naming conventions, procedures, rules, and remedies.

  • I am significantly non-plussed by this collection. What's the big important difference between .com and .biz? Some of the TLDs seem like they'll be useful (such as .museum), but overall I'd have to say that both the structure of ICANN (*cough*big*business*whore*cough*) and the process for this TLD "selection" have demonstratred their non-functionality very clearly. Does anyone doubt that just about any random collection of internet sophisticates couldn't have done better with a week of work? So, we end up with a measely selection of crap-tastic TLDs and ICANN's pockets substaintially heavier ($50,000 is a heavty chunk of change for a mere application wouldn't you say?).

    And, they failed to create a new adult oriented TLD (which would be ENORMOUSLY useful to both the porn mongers and the concerned parents of the world).

    Hmmm, let me see how hard this is:

    .adult or .xxx (adult oriented sites)
    .news (professional news media site)
    .me or .self or .personal (personal web site)
    .kids (kid oriented material)
    .reg (internet registrar)
    .host (hosting service provider)
    .tourism or .travel or maybe .place (tourism / travel / booking etc.)
    .web (professional webdesign)
    .lib (libraries et al)
    .art (art galleries)
    .store (online stores, which seems a lot clearer to me than .biz)
    .sci (scientific web sites, especially those that don't fall into the .edu and .org varieties)

    Any of these is better than most of the crap coughed up by ICANN.

    ICANN is an excellent example of what happens when you combine huge committees, lawyers, big business, and good ol' fashioned bureaucracy into one big lovable ball of everything that tries to kill off inventiveness, efficiency, common sense, personal independance, and the human spirit.

  • Save for .museum (and even that's pushing it), none of these are great names. ".biz" is the worst, as we might as well just let every .com grab the associated .biz address, and get nothing new in terms of name polution. ".info" may be useful, but .web would have been better. ".name" promises plenty of abuses and suits. (Does Madonna get "madonna.name"?). ".museum" might work, but then why not register museum.com, and do a yahoo directory from there, and use subdomains for each specific musuem (and of course, not all museums are commercial entities.)

    Nothing has been solved, pretty much. Name crowding will still happen. Hopefully the 5 new board members, NOW that they have power, might push for a faster review of newer TLDs before the next scheduled time. We'll still have squatters and RDNH occuring as there's nothing desirable in these.

  • ICANN never fails to amaze me. What have they approved? .coop, .museum, and .aero? First of all, .aero? What will this be used for? united.aero? boeing.aero? nasa.aero? Come on. This will have at most 5,000 names. Even if it has 10,000 names, it's not worth it. And there won't be growth in this area either.

    .coop is for banks and such? Alright, that's not that bad of a domain.. at least those uses number in the millions, if not close to it. But here's my question: where does it stop? Do we get .farmers? .pharmaceuticals? .bakers?

    .info? What in the world will this be used for? microsoft.info? help.info? lost.info? What kind of sites could this possibly be for? christian.info? election.info?

    It seems to me like they are overspecifying the use of some domains and underspecifying the use of others. .kids is a broad domain that allows many uses, but has a contraint on it. .biz doesn't. .biz will become a cleaner .com, but so what? All it would do is prevent trademark disputes. Secondly, what will happen to sites like buy.com? If they have a trademark on buy.com, then I can register buy.biz no problem, and that will be very confusing. On the other hand, they can't have a trademark on buy, so we end up with confusion. We will get an exact copy of .com, except without personal websites. But what's to say I'm not a buisness? I've done website design for people.

    .name is just plain stupid. Too bad for anybody who has the same name. Can madonna get madonna.name? Are they going to verify my name? What about for international people? This will be TERRIBLE! Also, nobody with a long last name will register it. Anybody see office space? "ninnine-"? Who was the director of the Sixth Sense? Shyamalan?

    The only ones I can see working are .coop and .museum. All the rest are very shortsighted and simply not thought-out. Woe for the smart and useful domains like .kids.

  • And I know that my definition of "bad" will be the same as yours. It just has to be! I know exactly what you shouldn't be seeing or listening too!
    I'm so glad I have someone to decide for me. Freedom was such hard work. And I'm glad to see that you're unelected and completely unaccountable, just like all the members of the ICANN board who are currently allowed to vote.

    Please send me e-mail immediately informing me of which websites are much too erotic or perverted, so I can make sure not to visit them.

    --

  • Actually....that looks like it might be the most worthwhile of the TLDs. I'm not certain from what I read of the application but do you have to register for each .x.pro domain, or do you get them all when you register one .pro domain?

    Although, the dual tiers tend to make it a bit more clunky.

    It's interesting that not many people have thought of alternatives to the domain name / TLD system we have right now. Certainly it's not the optimal solution, and yet the powers that be and even the powers that don't be have given almost zero serious thought to even thinking up alternatives, let alone evaluationg and discussing them.

  • by edibleplastic ( 98111 ) on Thursday November 16, 2000 @06:22PM (#619024)
    C.Everett.coop?

Economics is extremely useful as a form of employment for economists. -- John Kenneth Galbraith

Working...