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

 



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

Plans For New TLDs 276

babycakes writes "Yesterday ICANN unanimously approved a proposal to add a number of new TLDs, to be determined at a later date. Here's the story on InfoWorld and at the BBC."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Plans For New TLDs

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:45AM (#4898201)
    It time for a .dot domain!
  • .porn (Score:5, Interesting)

    by martingunnarsson ( 590268 ) <martin&snarl-up,com> on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:47AM (#4898206) Homepage
    A .porn domain would be good, if most of the porn was collected under a single TLD it would be easy to block it at schools and so on.
    • Re:.porn (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Angram ( 517383 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:51AM (#4898236)
      We've gone over this a hundered times. .porn won't work. Forcing people in one domain is impossible on a large scale (and the censorship, etc), but keeping a domain clean isn't as bad. That's why we've got .kids in the works.
      • Re:.porn (Score:2, Interesting)

        I don't think porn sites should be forced into it. It's better to somehow make it cool for porn sites to have a .porn address.
        • Re:.porn (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @12:00PM (#4898895) Homepage
          I don't think porn sites should be forced into it. It's better to somehow make it cool for porn sites to have a .porn address.

          "Cool"? Pornography on the internet isn't a high-school popularity contest-- it's about making money. Making .porn "cool" might get a few porn site operators who still idolize Fonzie, but for the rest of 'em you're going to have to appeal to their pocketbooks.
          • Re:.porn (Score:3, Insightful)

            by timeOday ( 582209 )
            Uh, yes, that's the point. To sell more by putting your stuff where people will expect to find it. That's why plumbers advertize in the Yellow Pages under "plumbing" rather than "photography."
      • Re:.porn (Score:5, Informative)

        by rmohr02 ( 208447 ) <mohr,42&osu,edu> on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:11AM (#4898370)
        I believe it's .kids.us
      • Re:.porn (Score:5, Insightful)

        by spakka ( 606417 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:29AM (#4898484)
        The trouble with '.kids' is that you end up with the intersection of everybody's ideas of what is suitable for kids. If you've met the kind of religious cunt who glues together the pages dealing with evolution in the family encyclopaedia, you'll see the problem.
        • by mpe ( 36238 )
          The trouble with '.kids' is that you end up with the intersection of everybody's ideas of what is suitable for kids.

          It's exactly the same issue as with the .porn domain idea. The only way it might be workable would be as a secondary or tertiary domain within a geo-specific hierarchy.
          • Re:.porn (Score:3, Interesting)

            by spakka ( 606417 )
            It's exactly the same issue as with the .porn domain idea

            With .porn, you define a domain positively based on its content. It's easy to imagine a whole list of such domains dealing with different types of 'controversial' material, say, domians which dealt with comparitive religion, explicit but non-porn sexual matters, and so on. These domains would be blockable by arbitrarily liberal or prudish parents

            .kids is different, in that it's a catch-all containing everything left over when you remove the unsuitable material. Further, it has to be suitable for children in the most repressive households, or else word gets out among some religious community that .kids allows unfettered access to material dealing with sexual health, evolution, atheism, blood transfusions, or other such horrors.

          • Re:.porn (Score:3, Funny)

            by Greedo ( 304385 )
            The only way it might be workable would be as a secondary or tertiary domain within a geo-specific hierarchy.

            Excellent! This will make it much easier for me to find pictures of hot German chicks at *.PORN.DE, withouth having to look through ugly Russian girls (now at *.PORN.RU).
      • You know, I've seen a number of discussions here on .xxx or whetever, and I haven't come across a reason why it wouldn't work. I mean it's not forcing people to go there any more than the word 'Pornography' is forced to be under the P in a dictionary. Oh, the horror, the censorship!

        Also, why wouldn't the x-rated want to be under a .xxx TLD? It only makes 'em more easy to find, and anyone who's looking for porn will find it anyway. And anyone who doesn't want to find it will click away anyway. The ones who would want to stay under .com or whaterever (then infamous whitehouse.org comes to mind) are of such questionable character anyway that one would think they should be forced to disclose their intentions anyway.
        Plus of course, economically speaking, clustering of similar services has allways been a good thing.

        As for enforcement...if there's enough to go into a discussion if something is porn or not, the site in question should probably be under .xxx in the first place (otherwise there wouldn't be a discussion!). Yes, some fundamentalist could make the wrong call....but that's the case anywhere, whether in movie ratings, ideological things or anywhere where there is a judgement call to be made.
        And I should think it's just as easy to shoot off an email over whether that site under .kids is 'dirty' or that site under .net/.org/.com/.whatever is carying x-rated material.
    • Re:.porn (Score:5, Informative)

      by nick-less ( 307628 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:55AM (#4898267)

      A .porn domain would be good, if most of the porn was collected under a single TLD it would be easy to block it at schools and so


      blocking via domainnames? I think you'd better block via IP, most of those kids are smart enough to figure this out...
      Anyway the most illegal porn won't be located under http//www.lolita.porn. but under http://fctnts14d017.nbnet.nb.ca/~xydds/ this is why filtering wont work...
      • Re:.porn (Score:4, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:18AM (#4898684)
        Dammit, http://fctnts14d017.nbnet.nb.ca/~xydds/ doesn't work...
    • Re:.porn (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Tar-Palantir ( 590548 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:57AM (#4898287)
      Define porn. That's the problem with ideas like a .porn or .xxx domain - who defines it? For example, what about nudism? It's nakedness with genitals visible (oh no!). Porn? not a chance, in my book, but what about Ashcroft's book.

      Besides, who is going to enforce such a separation? it may not even be constitutional here in the US, and there will always be a country with less-stringent rules that sites can take refuge in.

      In short, such a proposal will not work. Get over it. Sex is a fact of life. If you find porn distasteful (I do, personally) DON'T LOOK.

      Tar-Palantir
      • Re:.porn (Score:2, Funny)

        by Anonymous Coward
        We need a .porn TLD immediately! This would make my web surfing so much more efficient. I hate going to web pages that don't have pictures of naked women. What a waste of time.
      • Re:.porn (Score:5, Funny)

        by spakka ( 606417 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:09AM (#4898620)
        who defines it?

        The courts. Law is full of 'man on the Clapham omnibus'-style subjective definitions. Why should porn be different?

        Legislators would devise some 'reasonable wankability' test, which the courts would interpret and apply.

        • by mpe ( 36238 )
          The courts. Law is full of 'man on the Clapham omnibus'-style subjective definitions. Why should porn be different?

          In which case you don't want a .porn TLD in the first place. You need to have something which follows the jurisdiction of the courts. e.g. .porn.clapham.london.uk.

          Legislators would devise some 'reasonable wankability' test, which the courts would interpret and apply.

          You'd need to get 200 odd legislatures to agree, being as they can't even manage this on the simpler problem of prosecuting war criminals it's a bit of a waste of time trying.
      • While I have to agree with you on your point, I think the idea of a .porn domain is a wonderful one. Legitimate pornography businesses could migrate themselves to .porn and not bother anybody. They know that people looking for porn will seek it out, and those that want to filter it out wont. If a few big outlets move over to a new domain, people will begin to only trust that particular domain. While it is a VERY distributed industry, resonance can shift the whole thing very quickly.
    • dot come (Score:3, Funny)

      by Mad Man ( 166674 )
      Re: .porn [slashdot.org]

      A .porn domain would be good, if most of the porn was collected under a single TLD it would be easy to block it at schools and so on.

      How about .come for porn sites?
    • Re:.porn (Score:2, Funny)

      by Analogy Man ( 601298 )
      It seems quite intuitive...

      A .porn, .xxx or .sex TLD would make it easier for kids to find the stuff (much easier than a Google search on "Big Boobs")

      In turn the .kids TLD will make it easier for pedofiles and other creeps to find kids (at least the ones that aren't trolling in .porn sites).
    • Re:.porn (Score:5, Funny)

      by epukinsk ( 120536 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:12AM (#4898645) Homepage Journal
      That's a great idea. I just opened a new hotel in St. Louis called Hotel Ectrics Ex in the latin district, but it turns out some bastard already registered hotelectricsex.com. Move all those pervs to .porn so legitimate businesspeople like myself can run our businesses!
      • What would be truly nice would be a .hotel (or some other TLD - .room? .board? .lodging? Ah, well)

        you could regsiter with the providor and www.hotel could have a search by location, bringing up all the .hotel domains that wished to be listed.

        This would be a great system for a many domains... .movie, .store, .bank, a few hundred others...

        Now we just need to get people to think it's a good idea.
  • Dot US (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Angram ( 517383 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:49AM (#4898219)
    When will the United States finally have to act like everybody else and use ".us" for sites hosted in the country? I'm sure Microsoft and Netscape would just autocomplete that part, like they do with "http://".
    • Re:Dot US (Score:5, Funny)

      by sfled ( 231432 ) <sfled&yahoo,com> on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:53AM (#4898252) Journal

      Ok, if we get .us, does the rest of the world get .them?
    • Re:Dot US (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:56AM (#4898275) Homepage Journal
      Probably around the same time us British start writing our contry name on our postage stamps.

      We set the idea of postage stamps up, so we ended up being the default, just like the US did for domains.
    • Re:Dot US (Score:3, Informative)

      by dj28 ( 212815 )
      Because, quite frankly, the US government created the internet. All other TLDs such as .net, .org, and .com are not limited to US companies and organizations. The same thing most likely applies to the new TLDs that will be proposed. These are just additional TLDs to the already existing country code TLDs.
      • Re:Dot US (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Angram ( 517383 )
        Who created it is irrelevant. There are more people on the internet in Europe than in the US. We keep making up names that are English, and yes, while it is a common second language, it's not the best idea. The internet is all about sharing (info, etc), not about the English language's ability to control technology.
    • Re:Dot US (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Gothmolly ( 148874 )
      When the rest of the world creates something as innovative as the Internet, then the US will play along "just like everyone else".
    • Re:Dot US (Score:5, Informative)

      by Selanit ( 192811 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:12AM (#4898376)
      When will the United States finally have to act like everybody else and use ".us" for sites hosted in the country? I'm sure Microsoft and Netscape would just autocomplete that part, like they do with "http://".

      It's not mandatory to use the two-letter country suffixes for non-US sites. For example, jungle.co.uk (an online retailer of computer goods and so on) is just a re-direct to jungle.com, even though they do business exclusively in the UK.

      Also, the .US domain has recently been opened up to general use. It's available from a number of different registrars, for example here [alldomains.com] and here [registersite.com] and here [register.com], to name a few.

      Regarding auto-completing parts of URLs, note that the "http" protocol is universal to web sites. (Well, if you count https, but anybody using that for an entire site will have an unencrypted redirect page if they have the first clue what they're doing.) It is interesting, though, to try different browsers with just random words typed into the location bar. Internet Explorer, for example, will interpret "foobar" as a search term and direct you to a MicroSoft owned search engine where it will search for foobar. Phoenix (and most likely NS7, Beonex, and their common progenitor Mozilla) will assume that you meant http://www.foobar.com/ and send you there.

    • Re:Dot US (Score:2, Informative)

      by aggieben ( 620937 )
      .com, .org, .net and .edu can be registered for from any country. It's not like the US is forcing sites located in other countries to use their tld's (as if we could). Also, the reason that it appears that the US has a 'monopoly' on those 4 domains is because the internet started here.
  • by Fuzzypig ( 631915 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:50AM (#4898227)
    All very nice, but when the CEO demands IT get him a website with domain ".big-corp.com", you try telling him no and he now has to have "www.big-corp.screw-customers-for-profit"...of course you could always threaten, sorry, legally pressure some poor little geek for his personal domain, 'cos its got your company name in it.
    • Re:Very nice but... (Score:3, Interesting)

      by mpe ( 36238 )
      All very nice, but when the CEO demands IT get him a website with domain ".big-corp.com", you try telling him no and he now has to have "www.big-corp.screw-customers-for-profit"...of course you could always threaten, sorry, legally pressure some poor little geek for his personal domain, 'cos its got your company name in it.

      Thing is that if .com were managed properly this "poor little geek" would have had to go to the trouble of registering "big-corp" as a business in at least two countries before they'd have had any chance of getting .big-corp.com
      The interesting thing is that many real transnational businesses want to chop their market up into regions (even single countries) anyway.
  • Monopoly! (Score:4, Interesting)

    by WPIDalamar ( 122110 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:51AM (#4898230) Homepage
    ICANN's a damned monopoly with no interest for the common internet user. We need another top level domain registrar.
    • Re:Monopoly! (Score:2, Insightful)

      I don't think this guys topic is especially off-topic.

      They have failed miserably to promote the names introduced in 2000. How many web addresses have you seen with .biz or .info ... seriously?

      I've seen a few small companies here in Scotland with the newest suffixes and I get angry at the marketing company who set them up, before the names have "bedded in".

      As a result, these .biz etc websites will be getting very little traffic outside of google's spiders.

      I've actually missed a few firms because I was looking for a .com / .co.uk address and never thought of .biz, and I'm a clued up slashdot-using internet professional, so what chance does the rest of userland have?
      • Re:Monopoly! (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Puu ( 596370 )
        Maybe it's because .biz looks just as respectable as .mob ... No really, some people just want to have the plain old .com over any new fangled invention (never mind the dot bomb era).
    • http://www.opennic.unrated.net/

      I've had my computer pointing to them for a while now, and everything works swimmingly. They support most of the TLDs that ICANN uses, and define a few of their own. Encourage people to use it. If enough do, then eventually we can switch over to a democratic system.

      We do actually need a universal registrar, much as we need universal telephone numbers. However, opennic is democratic while ICANN is an isolated monolith. We need to switch.
    • I can't help thinking that the domain name system worked a lot better when it was all run by one company. I register domains with OpenSRS, and trying to take over domains administered by Network Solutions, for example, is a nightmare, because half the time they just ignore the requests to hand over the domain. The last thing we want is to introduce that kind of behaviour at the next level up.

  • by briancnorton ( 586947 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:51AM (#4898238) Homepage
    The current decision decided that the new tlds must be implemented in a timely manner... Proposals must be submitted by 2009, and a formal decision can be expected by 2123.
  • by kusma ( 139069 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:52AM (#4898241) Homepage
    They should have opened a lot of new TLDs years ago, when good domain names were much more important than now.

    Nowadays, I google for websites much more often than using their domain name anyway, and I hope people will rather spend the $50k mentioned in the BBC article on a good website that will be first hit on Google than on a domain name.
    • That's £50,000 to sponsor creation of a whole new TLD, not just to buy a domain.
    • yea I agree with this. Google is a great tool for those who know of it, and how simply powerful and accurate it is.

      Recently, I started using Phoenix's address bar as a "phrase bar," where I enter what I want to see.. like "apache python module," and usually (about 90% of the time), since it automatically grabs the first google search result of "apache python module," I get exactly what I want.
    • by n3k5 ( 606163 )
      I wanted to post something like this (parent) earlier on, but my connection went dead before i hit submit, so I put it here now:

      As my friend Billy S. said: "What's in a TLD name? That which we call a foo by any other name would be as easy to google."

      The concept of searching for content by trying out an 'address' is SO 1990ies... Of course, if I want the site of the Austrian postal service, I can be pretty sure that it will be at post.at and try that first. Other names might not be that straight-forward, but still easier to remember, like bmf.gv.at for the BundesMinisterium für Finanzen, which is part of the GoVernment of AusTria. But you only remember that address if you already found out (with Google etc.) that it's basicly saying 'Bundesministerium für Finanzen', and not the more commonly used shorter term 'Finanzministerium'.

      Everything less official doesn't have intuitive domain names any longer because there have been way too much name clashes already. If a new movie about foo is released, the site isn't foo.com, it's foo-the-movie-com, foomovie.com, $$$productions.com/foo or something like that. No one tries any of these, as a search engine query will lead to the target much faster. People who want free pr0n aren't trying freepr0n.com any longer.

      By the time anything like .travel will be well known and widely used by the respective sites, people will generally be googling their way to the desired sites anyway. Of course, the intention behind the new TLDs is to make the names intuitive again, like in the old days when you went to pizza.com when you wanted to order a pizza on-line. But with a great amount of TLDs, where do you go to? pizza.food, pizza.delivery, pizza.homeshopping or get-me-some.pizza? Any anyway, how many TV stations actually bought a .tv domain when it was made available from Tuvalu?

      So, what's in a name? Nothing at all, it doesn't matter to people anyway. It's just nicer to have something 'human-readable' for writing it down instead of an IP number, but once everyone carries around their bookmarks on PDAs (or wristwatches or smartcards) and does the drag-and-drop instead of the scribble-on-paper thing, even those would be okay as addresses, even if they were in decimal format.
    • by oever ( 233119 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:25AM (#4898732) Homepage
      With URL's you can access the entire web. With Google, you can't [wired.com].

      In a free world, 'where do you want to google today' might work.

  • I was wondering... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Andy_R ( 114137 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:52AM (#4898243) Homepage Journal
    how they could decide that new TLDs were needed without first deciding what they would be.

    Then I spotted this part of the BBC story:

    Under the new plans, any organisation can propose a name. But it must prove that the new domain will represent a well-defined community closely associated with the domain name, and supply a $50,000 application fee. Final approval rests with Icann

    Might I suggest that anyone stupid enough to give Icann $50,000 with the nothing in return but a 'we'll think about it' from a notoriously unaccountable organisation that is responsible for the lack of decent TLDs in the first place should be awarded a new .dumbass domain?
  • by rdewald ( 229443 ) <rdewald@NOspaM.gmail.com> on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:52AM (#4898249) Homepage Journal
    What would really be useful for Internet culture would be a .kid TLD that would be free of content that requires a mature personality to process, such as graphic violence, graphic sex, advertising, etc. I don't have children (and I am no prude), but I can imagine what a problem it can be to manage one's children's Internet use. Having a restricted TLD might help.
  • .com worth more (Score:4, Interesting)

    by QaBOjk ( 614183 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:53AM (#4898255)
    What's funny is that a .com domain name has much more value than any other TLD.. but to purchase any new TLD costs 3 times as much as a .com
    • What's funny is that a .com domain name has much more value than any other TLD.. but to purchase any new TLD costs 3 times as much as a .com

      How are you determining a .com domain has much more value? It seems to me its the length of the domain name, not the extension, that matters. And it also depends on your line of work.

      Sure, hbo.com is valuable. So is hbo.tv.

      The other TLD's are expensive because its still possible to get short domain names in their namespace.

      Which is more valuable:

      mynameisjonathanfrakes.com

      or

      number2.cc
  • Bad choice of TLDS. (Score:5, Interesting)

    by irc.goatse.cx troll ( 593289 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:55AM (#4898266) Journal
    " the International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated its case for ".travel," the World Health Organization (WHO) lobbied for ".health," Nokia Corp. for ".mobile" and a group of Internet companies said it wants ".III" for individuals"

    IMO most of those are pretty useless. ICANN should be working on revoking the country TLDS's that are being abused (.tk, .tv). Why add more unneeded TLDs that will just confuse things? .III: Of all these proposals, this makes the most sense reasoning wise, but why three I's? .mobile: I'd love to type 'mobile' out with those annoying keypad typing things. .travel: Well look who's too good for .com's .health: Same, might be useful for only 'correct' health sites to prevent users from being misinformed, but who decieds that?

    Also, Has anyone here actually been glad that .info and .biz are in use?So far I've only seen one .info, and it was misused (No info on the site, it was a network). Still no .biz's yet
    • ICANN should be working on revoking the country TLDS's that are being abused (.tk, .tv)

      Ironic you left .cx out of your list, given your nick ;-)

    • " the International Air Transport Association (IATA) stated its case for ".travel,"

      Why not ".iata.int"?

      the World Health Organization (WHO) lobbied for ".health,"

      Why not ".who.un" or "who.int"

      Nokia Corp. for ".mobile"

      Don't they already have ".nokia.com"?

      and a group of Internet companies said it wants ".III" for individuals".

      This is actually the daftest, since how do you sensibly organise 6 billion domains?

      IMO most of those are pretty useless. ICANN should be working on revoking the country TLDS's that are being abused (.tk, .tv).

      That list also includes .nu, .cx, .co, .la ane even .ca and .ie
    • I'm surprised they're not - seeing how .tv is making money off of it and ICANN isn't...figured they'd be pissed about that.

      I think it goes to show that in creating these new TLD's, ICANN has zero clue about what they should be aiming for. .biz??? .television or .movie would have probably made more $$$ and more sense.
  • Well... (Score:4, Funny)

    by Lobo ( 10944 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:56AM (#4898277) Homepage
    With all the lobbying going on in ICANN, it is suprising that there is not a .squatter TLD.

  • Do the majority of people think it is wrong?

    Maybe some of the problem is giving up some of the current domains. Sure, if you've registered the name, you own it, and should be able to sell it. But, I can't go to the copyright office and register every word in the dictionary, can I?
  • by Angram ( 517383 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:58AM (#4898288)
    They shouldn't make more TLDs. Each country has one, let the individual nations make some lower domains on their own turf. If the US wants Travel, let it have .travel.us and stop clogging up the rest of the world. (It's only "Travel" in English, remember?)
    • Does .travel mean anything you would want a tld of, or anything inappropriate in other languages?

      Enquiring minds want to know
  • So? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by IamTheRealMike ( 537420 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:58AM (#4898291)
    It'd make no difference. A far better use of time would be to stop domain squatting. Far too often I enter a name and come across some random search site with ludicrously high bidding prices for the domain.

    Really, if all the domain squatters/speculators were cleared up .org/.com/.net would become far less crowded. The last set of new domain names failed spectacularly - the only one i've ever seen used is .info: .aero anybody? WTF? An entire TLD for a very specific industry?

  • by Alethes ( 533985 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @09:58AM (#4898294)
    Would it be better to have many tightly regulated TLDs, such has only allowing non-profit organizations to use .org, or would it be better to have just a couple of very generic TLDs?

    As it stands, most of the existing TLDs are not very regulated, thereby defeating the orginal point of having different TLDs. The other big problem is that existing .com owners get first pick of the new TLDs, meaning that it's just another domain companies have to buy/borrow/steal to prevent supposed trademark infringement. It certainly isn't to make it possible for me to go register amazon.info or yahoo.sex.
    • by mpe ( 36238 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:31AM (#4898494)
      Would it be better to have many tightly regulated TLDs, such has only allowing non-profit organizations to use .org, or would it be better to have just a couple of very generic TLDs?

      Or even you don't get a .com unless you are a commercial business operating in more than one country. A generic TLD would be something like .misc or .etc rather than treating .com, .net and .org as being .misc.

      As it stands, most of the existing TLDs are not very regulated,

      Indeed some of then have become less well regulated as time has gone on.

      thereby defeating the orginal point of having different TLDs.

      If domain names were used properly there wouldn't be an issue. The problem is treating a hierarchical system as though it is a flat namespace. No one is demmanding that there be more coutry names for postal mail or more country codes for telephones.

      The other big problem is that existing .com owners get first pick of the new TLDs, meaning that it's just another domain companies have to buy/borrow/steal to prevent supposed trademark infringement.

      Implying that the real idea is to make money out of the registrations. Anyway trademarks are ment to be specific to a specific place and type of business, though this appears to be increasingly ignored.
  • Kiwi style (Score:4, Funny)

    by infolib ( 618234 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:00AM (#4898304)
    We want dot geek! [slashdot.org]

    Or how about .ipv6 or .hackme?

    Of course, that could also be ipv6.geek and hackme.geek (or crackme.geek for Eric Raymond et. al.)
  • by jonr ( 1130 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:03AM (#4898324) Homepage Journal
    Mr. Lee never intented that the URL should be visible, and these days, when search engines have become "powerful enough" to find about anything, the domain name isn't that important anymore. Personally, I use Google to search for "someproduct or company" instead of someproductorcompany.com, I started to do this in the glory days of AltaVista.
    I think we should just allow any 3 letter top domain (aaa-zzz) and be done with it. 4 letters could be used for special purposes (.kids?) and 2 letters for countries. I can't see any technical problems with this, except that IBM would claim control over the .ibm domain. :)
  • Wrong Way! (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Greyfox ( 87712 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:14AM (#4898390) Homepage Journal
    Adding more TLDs is going the wrong way. As others have said, there are already the country code TLDs. So phase out the existing .com, .net and .org TLDs and make everyone go by country code. It's easy enough to put your country in your search domain anyway, so that if I said "ibm.com" I'd get ibm.com.us, while someone in Japan would get ibm.com.jp. This would solve the problem of non-multinational companies taking over a domain for all countries, too, AND allow much easier regulation of country specific domains like .kids. Face it, no one in the rest of the world is going to use .kids anyway.
  • Stpuid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by johnburton ( 21870 ) <johnb@jbmail.com> on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:17AM (#4898412) Homepage
    New domains are stupid because they'll either be ignored or else the same company will get all variations. Better would be to enforce a rule that an individual/company/organisation can only have ONE domain name. That's why subdomains were invented
  • by Joe U ( 443617 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:28AM (#4898480) Homepage Journal
    Additional TLD's won't help in the long run, because when it comes down to it, it's just all part of an aging DNS system.

    The better solution would be to replace DNS with a better naming system.

    Search engines are a good start but they are too hit or miss on many topics. Those with IE/Windows, try using the Google toolbar as your address bar for a week. It makes a decent DNS replacement system (Okay, it hides DNS, it still uses it, but it wouldn't be a big jump to switch Google to an all IP address solution)

    Leaving DNS will be a huge task, bigger than changing to IP v6. There needs to be some way to get everyone to install the replacement, or convince Mozilla/Netscape, AOL and Microsoft to include it.

    On a side note, at this time, there is only one plugin that has made it this far, and that's Flash. So, it can be done, there just has to be a compelling reason to get people to do it.
    • by Anonymous Coward
      so please tell me how a dynamically changin IP will work in this grand scheme of yours? or are you taking the same snooty ICANN route that if you cant afford a static IP you shouldn't be on the net?

      DNS it needs to be opened up completely. have .0000 - .zzzz tld's and have a free registration, first come first serve.

      anything else is just raping and pillaging from the people on this planet... (ICANN- stealing money from people daily!)
    • There are certainly ways to improve DNS, but name spaces are should not be confused with content indicators. Looking for Ford, or "Bob Jones", or "Pictures of Bubbles the Chimp" is fundamentally different than connecting to www.ford.com.

      Or do you also agree that the phone book should indicate what sort of information you'll get from me when you call my phone number, and be surprised if I start reading bad science fiction to you instead of telling you to place me on your Do Not Call list?

      Names are identifiers, not semantic indicators. Otherwise I'd be named Software Hack #22948236, White Male #039784982367, or perhaps Annoying Sarcastic Jerk #9865666652, depending on one's priorities.

      If Google resolved all links to IPs, that would make Google far more brittle, because content moves and IP addresses change.

      And I'm ignoring the larger issues of decentralized name delegation and the fact that you seem to be conflating the web with the net.

      I believe if you look at the wider URI specification, there is some what what you're looking for. URLs were considered Good Enough(TM) by most people, which is a little unfortunate, but if development houses can't even support that, how are you going to get them to toss DNS? (If you're really interested, DNS SERV records get closer to what I think you mean, too.)

      -j
  • by slashzero ( 524681 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:33AM (#4898499)
    I might be showing my ignorence but why do we need TLDs? Why can't domains be single names and go from there? It just seems like an out dated idea that isn't working. Why can't I just type http://slashdot and be done with it or at the max http://www.slashdot and that's it (although that does look weird). Why do we need all these .com,.net,.org,.museums any how? If we need them to categorize sites by type we would need an infinate number of TLDs to effectively categorize sites. Jesus, look at how many categories yahoo has for instance.
    • by sql*kitten ( 1359 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @12:09PM (#4898972)
      I might be showing my ignorence but why do we need TLDs? Why can't domains be single names and go from there? It just seems like an out dated idea that isn't working. Why can't I just type http://slashdot and be done with it or at the max http://www.slashdot and that's it (although that does look weird). Why do we need all these .com,.net,.org,.museums any how? If we need them to categorize sites by type we would need an infinate number of TLDs to effectively categorize sites. Jesus, look at how many categories yahoo has for instance.

      Well, in the ancient days, there was this bizarre idea that the name of something should in some way represent what it actually was. .net was intended for network infrastructure. So a company might have a .com domain for its public face, and any infrastructure that it operated that needed to be addressed from outside, say caches or routers or whatever, would all be .net.

      That's before idiots decided that .tv meant "television" and not "Tuvalu" or that .to could be come.to instead of Tonga. In short, the system is screwed because the people in charge of looking after it, like ICANN, are idiots. No other word for it, they are utterly incompetent and got their jobs by being "old geezers" who happened to be around when jobs were being assigned, and now they are clinging on to their vestiges of power as hard as they can.

      The solution is a free-for-all: you get whatever domains are being hosted on whatever root servers you want to use, no central authority. There's no need for one, there never really was.
  • .gnu (Score:3, Funny)

    by Mister Proper ( 567223 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:51AM (#4898520)
    I bet RMS will be thrilled when he hears this. The FSF will finally be able to propose the .gnu TLD [wired.com].
  • by X_Caffeine ( 451624 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @10:55AM (#4898530)
    ...I'm sure they'll come up with some real winners.
    • .cam - nubile 16-year-old girls with Amazon wishlists, and the FBI spooks who lurk there
    • .bomb - all venture-capital-rich startups start here for one year. if the company has not purchased any Aeron chairs within that period, they get awarded a .com
    • .trek - a special little home for people who actually care that Enterprise and Nemesis are completely out of synch with the rest of the series
    • .slash - a copyright-free zone for hot man-on-man fan fiction. may have a little overlap with .trek
    • .google - because sooner or later, Google is going to become the Internet anyway
    • .mac - give them their own damned internet so the rest of us can hear how much prettier, faster and more expensive it is. Pages will only move at 56k speeds, but a special "double-pumped" technology using two phone lines will supposedly make it as quick as DSL.


    and most importantly, .troll [-1 not funny] ;)
  • by Boss, Pointy Haired ( 537010 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:03AM (#4898570)
    I mentioned this in an article the other day but it was so far down that nobody noticed. .noads would be for websites that were either completely free _or_ charged REAL MONEY for their services.

    Once established I would surf almost exclusively in this domain.

    Now can anybody lend me USD 50,000?
  • by anonymous loser ( 58627 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:04AM (#4898583)
    chicken.coop, but that would involve starting up some kind of cooperative farm, which goes directly against my no-chicken-droppings-in-the-house policy.

  • by nagora ( 177841 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:19AM (#4898691)
    The whole IP crap has killed the utility of DNS; the mistake was basing it on letters. Letters mean memorable words (the original intent) but memorable words mean "branding" and "trademark" and "lawyers".

    A number based system is the only practical alternative: people and companies would publicise their "web number" just as they do their phone and/or fax today. So the first root domain would be "http://1/" and the owner of that could sell http://1.1 or 1.2 or 1.3 etc to whoever s/he likes. Meanwhile http://2 is sold off, then //3, //4 etc with no effective limit.

    This is NOT the same as using IP numbers - the "web number" is still translated into an IP number and the IP number can be changed without changing the web number.

    This kills almost all the problems with the current crap system of trademarked names and squatting while, thanks to search engines and bookmark files, not actually making the system much harder to use. A few numbers might still go for higher prices, like some phone numbers do, but this would be a far smaller issue than it is now. Meanwhile, by effectivly increasing the number of TLD's to infinity the power of ICANN is completly undermined and reigned in.

    I personally would not stop old style names being used but I would like to see and end to new ones being registered. But even if the current name system just became totally commercial and everyone else went to numbers, free from the threat of legal action because their name is "too like" someone elses, it would be an improvement.

    The ultimate improvement is to eliminate the control of registration of new names/numbers from a single person/group. In my alternative there is a lot less power invested anywhere since the owner of //1 can sell sub-domains forever without having to go back to the root registrar and since the numbers don't mean anything there is not such a big reason to keep wanting a TLD, but the root registrar still has too much power. I just can't think of a working system to eliminate that person and their DNS server(s) competely.

    TWW

    • This is NOT the same as using IP numbers

      No, but it has the exact same problem - impossible to remember. I'd rather not have to remember http://2093.927348/ - gimme http://slashdot.org/ anytime.
      • No, but it has the exact same problem - impossible to remember.

        The biggest prblem with IP numbers is that they change, memory is secondary.

        I'd rather not have to remember http://2093.927348/ - gimme http://slashdot.org/ anytime.

        Just stick in your bookmarks. I admit that it's easier to remember slashdot.org but how did you first find slashdot? Did you just guess the url? Of course not, you clicked on a link somewhere or read it or saw it on Google or something. After you found it and liked it what would be the big deal if it was a number?

        TWW

    • The DNS system is broken? I just typed in "slashdot.org" and got here just fine. What exactly are you referring to? Are you proposing that people type in "66.35.250.150" and remember that instead? What happens when IP addresses change?
      • What exactly are you referring to?

        The inability of people to get domains which are safe from either squatters or big business. The idea behind the TLD's was to allow separation, for example, of two companies that do things in different spheres or places. This has failed. For example, try going to Tuvalu and setting up a database of vulpine observations. I think you'll find that your "fox.tv" will get a very sharp letter and your ISP will drop you like a stone about 4 days later! The number of cases like this has got out of hand and can only get worse over time. In addition the limited number of TLDs and the way they are doled out gives ICANN far too much power.

        Are you proposing that people type in "66.35.250.150"

        Possibly, if 66 TLDs were sold and then the owner of #65 sold 35 subdomains and the owner of #35 sold 250 sub-subdomains and the owner of the 250th of those sold 150 sub-sub-subdomains and you wanted the site on the that sub-sub-sub domain, then yes. In reality I doubt that the sub divisions would ever get that deep since there would be no 255 limit; http://86625000/ would be totally legal and would allow as many individual sites as you would need in the example you gave. Would you care if the URLs in your bookmarks or on Google looked like this? How many sites do you regularly type the URL for? How many phone numbers have you memorised that are even longer than 86625000?

        What happens when IP addresses change?

        I specifically said that this is an abstraction on top of IP's and that there would be no change. If you like, I'm sort of suggesting that DNS servers accept numbers as legal name characters. There is absolutely no connection between web numbers and IP numbers.

        TWW

    • by Dun Malg ( 230075 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @01:03PM (#4899308) Homepage
      A number based system is the only practical alternative: people and companies would publicise their "web number" just as they do their phone...

      I don't think moving towards the "phone # model" is all that great an idea. It may be familiar, but it only exists because phones are a legacy system that, as originally designed, could only handle addressing serially and very low speed (pulse dialing). Phones themselves have been moving away from the "phone # model" lately. Between on-board phone # directories and voice recognition dialing, how many people still dial the actual number on the keypad anymore? I know I only enter numbers directly to dial if I'm calling a person/business I've never called before.

      This kills almost all the problems with the current crap system of trademarked names and squatting...

      Yeah, but it's really a strategy of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. People are fiercly competetive over recognizable domain names, so the solution is to make all domain addresses equally grim and abstract? That's a soviet communism solution.
      <hyperbole>
      While we're at it, lets apply this theory to art. Masterpieces of fine art are in finite supply, with not enough for everyone. The price of fine art is so high that many can't afford it. I propose we destroy all art and replace it with sequentially serial numbered sheets of framed (but blank) newsprint paper. That way, everyone will have their own distinct piece of art and no one will have the advantage of better art just because they have more money.
      </hyperbole>

      Count me out of this movement.
  • Why do we need tlds? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by briancnorton ( 586947 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @11:39AM (#4898818) Homepage
    I dont know a whole lot about internet architecture, but is there a reason that TLDs are crucial to operations? Why couldnt I have brian.norton? Why cant there be an unlimited number of TLDs?
  • by anethema ( 99553 ) on Monday December 16, 2002 @12:10PM (#4898976) Homepage
    .inc .ltd

    etc..I think a limited or incorperated company would be happy to have its own Businessname.inc

    Plus its short!
    (unlike SOME i could mention-- nokia.takesmeafuckinghourtotypethisonamobilephone
  • At this point in the game, the primary customers of the recent 'new' domains (.biz, .info) are trademark holders who are forced to register yet more domains. Its quite a boon for registrars when the name registrations start slowing down.

    I agree with many of the other posters here - dns is outdated and it doesn't fit how the Internet is used any more, particularly with respect to businesses online with trademarks, etc. The downside is that replacing it will happen just shortly after we all convert to IPv6 which should be about 3523 A.D.

BYTE editors are people who separate the wheat from the chaff, and then carefully print the chaff.

Working...