Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
The Trouble with TLD's

By scjody in Internet
Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:40:58 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)
Internet

I noticed an article on another site about ICANN's list of proposed TLD's, and I have to say, I find the TLD situation quite ridiculous.

I believe it's time to totally rethink the TLD system. My suggestion is to totally open up TLD's. Anyone can register under any TLD they want. But they would not own the TLD. Anyone else could also register their domain under that TLD.


As most of us know, .com is overcrowded. Currently, most English words are already registered, many to ridiculous squatters, leaving few .com domains for legitimate use. New TLD's are clearly needed, but is the current process really the right way to go?

The problem is that only a limited number of new TLD's will be created, so this is a temporary solution at best. Large companies and squatters will immediately jump on the new TLD's, and our current problems will be back before very long. What can we do about this?

My proposal is to allow any TLD to be used. For example, Amazon could register amazon.books as well as books.amazon. But Indigo would be free to register indigo.books, and RMS could register boycott.amazon to promote his cause. The result? It would be difficult, if not impossible, for one organisation to "own" a significant chunk of any TLD. Of course, we'd still need an adequate dispute resolution system for trademarks and such, but provided it didn't allow companies to claim an entire TLD, the system would be fair.

If this solution was implemented, there would no longer be a market for domain squatting, as only a little creativity would be needed to come up with a good alternative if your desired name was taken. Also, purchased country TLD's would be much less valuable. The downside? I don't see one. It may create some confusion at first, but no more than ICANN's current proposal would create. (Are they a .com or a .biz?)

Unlimited TLD's is an idea whose time has come, and I'm not the only one who thinks so. Will it ever see the light of day?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Unlimited TLD's:
o Should be implemented ASAP! 38%
o .com on, you've got to be kidding! 11%
o A great idea, but politically impossible 28%
o Aren't needed, and politically impossible 21%

Votes: 80
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o article
o list of proposed TLD's
o already registered
o ridiculous squatters
o his cause.
o purchased country TLD's
o not the only one
o Also by scjody


Display: Sort:
The Trouble with TLD's | 71 comments (70 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
I'm all active today.. (3.66 / 6) (#2)
by vinay on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:34:51 AM EST

Anyway.. I think this is a really good idea. it would also make finding things easier: "man.. what was barnesandnoble's website? man.. books.barnseandnoble, barnseandnoble.book, barnsandnoble.online?"

I think there would be a little more trouble with trademark disputes, however. It would become significantly easier to register fraudulent sites (what if amazon didn't have amazon.bookstore, and someone else registered it to rip off credit card #'s? bad shit..)

Still, overall, a good idea.

-\/

-\/


Re: I'm all active today.. (4.37 / 8) (#12)
by jay.gatsby on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:15:44 PM EST

> Anyway.. I think this is a really good idea. it would also make
> finding things easier: "man.. what was barnesandnoble's website?
> man.. books.barnseandnoble, barnseandnoble.book,
> barnsandnoble.online?"

Well, it could make things more difficult as well. Whereas now you can pretty much bet that a major company has a .com address, you could end up wondering what some companies might have registered. The number of domain names that might have to be registered so that most of the possible logical choices would be covered could end up being huge. For example, "Your Local Deli" might have to end up registering your.local.deli, yourlocaldeli.sandwiches, yourlocaldeli.restaraunt, yourlocaldeli.food, yourlocaldeli.eat, etc. to hit a large quantity of the good choices. In the worst-case scenario I can think of, they might not be able to front the cash to cover the fees for all of those domain names (and I can't see the abandoning fees for the maintenance and registration of domain names, especially given the extra overhead this proposal would add to the current system). At best, I think we'd end up with mass anarchy in domain name registration, which would have the net effect of making some things harder to find.

-------
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
-- Proverbs 18.2
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm all active today.. (4.77 / 9) (#15)
by vsync on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:35:53 PM EST

So what if you can't find [X Corporation] through randomly guessing the domain? I can't find the hardware store by randomly guessing an address and then calling a cab to take me directly there, either.

I've heard someone mention that the original idea of the Web would be to abstract away any details of network topology. You'd have your portal or start page or what have you, and from there you'd do searches or follow links. Details like hosts and paths would be mostly hidden from the end user. This works great, in case no one has noticed. I have various useful sites in my bookmarks (Google, /., K5) and I tend to follow links from there.

The problem is that companies don't want to actually have customers that discover them and are interested in their services. They want to tell customers "go to our site now!" This is not always bad, but it means several things:

  1. The Web loses much of its intersite linking. Judge Kaplan's decision doesn't help matters.
  2. The average American, who knows nothing about DNS and doesn't want to know, is now thrown into a world where he is expected to. Instead this person just whines and mocks the existing system ("why do web sites always have .com? that's stupid")
  3. Instead of seeing the domain as just a pointer to some actual content, corporations and advertisers put the emphasis on the domain. They can't keep themselves from suing because in their view the domain is what's important.

I'm not so sure it is possible to change things. People will just whine again ("i just got used to .com, why'd they do this all of a sudden?") I like the idea of our own nameservers so we don't havd to worry about these people.

--
"The problem I had with the story, before I even finished reading, was the copious attribution of thoughts and ideas to vsync. What made it worse was the ones attributed to him were the only ones that made any sense whatsoever."
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm all active today.. (2.66 / 6) (#20)
by jay.gatsby on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:45:22 PM EST

> So what if you can't find [X Corporation] through randomly
> guessing the domain? I can't find the hardware store by randomly
> guessing an address and then calling a cab to take me directly
> there, either.<br.

Point well taken.

-------
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
-- Proverbs 18.2
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm all active today.. (4.16 / 6) (#23)
by Mitheral on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:07:23 PM EST

I think a call to stop the dumbing down of the internet will be fruitless :). That said Brad Templeton of r.h.f fame has a great essay about alternatives to the way tld in particular and all domains in general are assigned. I agree that domain names aren't scaling well and as assuredly as we will need IPV6 we will need a reform of the domain name system. And sooner would be better than later.

OpenNIC is trying to get something a bit more democratic going.

[ Parent ]

Corporate names? (2.50 / 2) (#3)
by fprintf on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:14:19 PM EST

Aren't corporate names sufficient? I mean, this whole .TLD thing is out of control... if you eliminate it completely then all you have is the company name.

For instance, microsoft - as a company they do not want to have to cover every TLD .xxx, .biz, .com, .per etc. So if we eliminate the TLDs and use existing law regarding using a company name for business/satire/personal purposes.

I do understand that there may be many ABC Plumbing Companies world-wide, so perhaps having numbers is another solution. Based on incorporation date you get assigned a certain domain - ABCPlumbing1, ABCPlumbing2 etc.

Never mind, that is more confusing... <lurk>
Wear sunscreen.
Re: Corporate names? (5.00 / 2) (#42)
by loner on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:41:50 PM EST

Umm, there is more to the internet than corporations. I can see microsoft being interested in microsoft.biz and microsoft.com, although some folks might argue that they only belong to microsoft.xxx :) but microsoft should definitely not be allowed to register in the .per tld (assuming .per is for personal but who knows) that should be reserved for the microsoft family... ok mcdonald would be a better example.

[ Parent ]
How about .. (2.33 / 3) (#4)
by Eloquence on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:19:45 PM EST

.. an additional .tm (trademark) domain where you can only register if you really have a trademark on that name?
--
Copyright law is bad: infoAnarchy Pleasure is good: Origins of Violence
spread the word!
Many companies, same trademark (4.00 / 3) (#7)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:36:38 PM EST

Then what happens when you have many companies sharing a trademark? To choose a random example, Prodigy Communications claims Prodigy as a trademark, but so does Phenomenex, as highlighted here. Not to mention Prodigy the band.

A company does not own a trademark "across the board". Prodigy Communications' trademark merely prevents things like an ISP called ProdigyNet. It does not prevent others, such as the chemical company or the band, from using it as a trademark. So who should own prodigy.tm?

Under the "unlimited TLD" proposal, this problem would be worked around by having prodigy.online, prodigy.music, and phenomenex.prodigy for example.

[ Parent ]

Re: How about .. (4.00 / 1) (#50)
by Sven on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:28:21 PM EST

You can't have .tm, it's already been assigned to Turkmenistan.

--
harshbutfair - you know it makes sense
[ Parent ]
I'm rather happy with TLD's (2.33 / 3) (#5)
by Defect on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:29:00 PM EST

I think a broader spectrum of tld's can only help in the long run. The handful that we can use now clearly weren't enough, and now that everyone and their monkey is getting a domain name, we need new tld's badly. and it can only make searching and remembering sites a bit easier.
defect - jso - joseth || a link
Re: I'm rather happy with TLD's (3.00 / 2) (#16)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:38:36 PM EST

But a few more TLDs is only a temporary fix. If we simply add more TLDs, we'll be back in the present situation before very long. And I believe the new TLDs would become crowded sooner than most people think, due to large companies rushing to claim "their" names and the inevitable squatters. As long as we limit TLDs, there will be squatters.

[ Parent ]
The Underlying Problem (3.33 / 3) (#6)
by Simon Kinahan on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:31:42 PM EST

Its definitely true that "scarcity" of domain names is artifial. It, and the subsequent disputes, only come about because of the fixed number of TLDs.

However, domain names only matter while we're dependent on DNS for locating information. As far as I can see, the fundamental problem is that you need to know, or guess, the name of a machine before you can get at the data stored there. This doesn't scale well, hence Portals, the latest vacuous industry trend that won't make you rich quick. It would be better, I think, to move over to a data addressing system, where the address of a document is some kind of information about it, rather than its location on the virtual file system of a pseudo-computer which isn't really located in a single place. Such a system has the advantage of being inherently searchable.

Simon

If you disagree, post, don't moderate
Re: The Underlying Problem (4.00 / 3) (#39)
by itsbruce on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:23:30 PM EST

Such a system has the advantage of being inherently searchable.
And the disadvantage of moving from an absolute to a subjective frame of reference, if I understand you correctly. Who would assess the content of documents before they were given addresses? Who would adjudicate over disputes over categorisation?

I see holy wars resulting.

--

It is impolite to tell a man who is carrying you on his shoulders that his head smells.
[ Parent ]
Re: The Underlying Problem (4.00 / 2) (#64)
by Ronin SpoilSpot on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 06:30:17 PM EST

hear hear! The problem is not the TLD's. It's DNS itself.
Why didn't this happen on the phones? Or did it? I'm not from a country where we have letters on the phone, so we wouldn't be able to make a number like 1-800-eat-shit, but I haven't heard of it being a problem in the US either. Instead, we have dictionaries...
I can find the phone number of anyone in my country by looking it up in a dictionary. All I need to know is some information that uniquely designates him... address is unique, name is not, but name and town might be. Sometimes occupation is listed, if the person want it.
Now look at DNS. The only way to look up the IP-number of a computer is by it's full name, and it's not the computer I want anyway, it's a ressource on it.
We need internet dictionaries, where you can have the IP of your web server (or whatever service) associated to sufficient information for people to find it.
We need network clients that are able to look up in such dictionaries, perhaps using a common lookup-service. Such dictionaires should have unique keys that would allow quick lookups, but they wouldn't need to be human readable.

(ObRant: I get *quite* irritated when I see someone consider a domain name without a web-page unused. It can easily be used for email or ftp or irc or other services than just that fancy new -comer protocol. Having a
web-page is NOT a measure of use!!! Get it, please!)
/SS

"This space intentionally left blank"
[ Parent ]
No problems until money was involved (2.71 / 7) (#8)
by Signal 11 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 12:53:49 PM EST

There weren't any problems with the DNS system until commercial interests got involved. It worked great because nobody fought over domain names - they were just easy-to-remember names, and if someone got the one you wanted, you just picked another.

With all the dot com craziness today though, if someone else has yours you get sued. Adding more TLDs won't fix the problem because companies will just snap up their name in the new TLDs too, and we're back to square one. There's plenty of space in the DNS hierarchy for every man, woman, child, server, and sentient slime mold to be in it.

I vote to dissolve ICANN and kick the government out of the affair. It's slow, unreliable, prone to infighting, and has obvious political favoritism towards businesses. If we setup a cabal of independent DNS servers and broke the hierarchy there'd be mass chaos, but atleast that would fix it. It couldn't be done in the US though.. they're too pissy about doing things their way instead of the right way.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.

Re: No problems until money was involved (2.00 / 2) (#25)
by cbond on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:13:54 PM EST

I don't think the problem is commercial interests, but rather the sheer abundance of people wanting to register domain names. Of course, part of this problem is the fact that it's now very necessary to own a domain name for your company, but that's not the root of the problem. I believe the problem is that there are only so many options. Adding a few more, however, is not going to solve anything in the long-term.

Do you really think Microsoft won't register microsoft.zone? microsoft.media? microsoft.online? This is definitely not going to solve the problem -- we need something better.

[ Parent ]
Would be nice, but . . . (4.11 / 9) (#9)
by jay.gatsby on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:01:50 PM EST

An unlimited amount of TLDs is a nice idea, in theory, but unfortunately it would require a massive overhaul of the current implementation of DNS as I understand it. This is why (anyone out there with a better understanding than me, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong . . .)

Each TLD has a group of servers that are authoritative to dispense the DNS servers that are authoritative for the SLDs that are registered under the TLD. Thus, you have a group of servers that are authoritative for the .org TLD. When somebody wants to look up the IP address of www.kuro5hin.org, the root server refers the request to a server authoritative for .org, which then refers the request to a server authoritative for kuro5hin.org, which returns the IP address of the machine named "www" in the "kuro5hin.org" domain.

So, under the current system, each new TLD would require a new pool of servers be delegated authority for that TLD, or either an existing set of servers have authority for that TLD added to their scope of authority. It seems to me that this process would add a whole new level of complexity to the whole system.

A possible alternative would be to allow organizations that wanted to create a new TLD to be prepared to properly administer a pool of servers with authority for that TLD, but it seems to me that such a solution would take the currently (more or less) centralized system and create a bit of chaos, in addition to opening up all sorts of abuses (i.e., Amazon creates the .amazon and .book TLDs and accepts authority for them, but then refuses to register boycott.amazon to RMS or anotherstore.book to anotherstore, or drags their feet on the registration).

Anyway, that's my 2 cents for now; if anybody has other corrections, insights, suggestions, etc., I'd be happy to see 'em.

-------
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
-- Proverbs 18.2

Re: Would be nice, but . . . (4.11 / 9) (#37)
by Signal 11 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:08:20 PM EST

That's not entirely correct. One server can be authoritative for hundreds of domains - even TLDs. The biggest problem with mulitple TLDs is one of an administrative, not technical, nature.


--
Society needs therapy. It's having
trouble accepting itself.
[ Parent ]
Re: Would be nice, but . . . (3.40 / 5) (#41)
by jay.gatsby on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:33:38 PM EST

> That's not entirely correct. One server can be authoritative for
> hundreds of domains - even TLDs. The biggest problem with
> mulitple TLDs is one of an administrative, not technical, nature.

Oh well -- I'm learning.

In any case, I imagine that such a scheme would be, at best, quite an administrative nightmare. Either the administration would have to be delegated to other entities (bad idea, somebody would have to oversee them to make sure there were no abuses) or the current servers would have to be updated to be authoritative every time some joker decided to register some ".adsfjadslkjladsf" TLD or the like.

-------
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
-- Proverbs 18.2
[ Parent ]

What about the effect on the root nameservers? (3.75 / 8) (#10)
by pw201 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:03:52 PM EST

Is your suggestion practical given that the root nameservers would potentially have to hold a huge list of TLDs? ISTR reading that in the old days before the current DNS system, every host had to have a list of the name to IP mapping for every other host: because this became unweildy, the current heirarchical system was developed.

Maybe there are workarounds (eg, this set of servers answers queries for TLDs beginning with letters from A-M, and so on), and maybe people would actually register their names under existing TLDs rather than creating their own just for the sake of it. But I'm not sure about that one: the mad rush for .coms seems to indicate that people won't do the sensible thing where domain names are concerned.

Another question: in your proposal, you suggest that Amazon could register books.amazon and RMS could register boycott.amazon. This assumes that Amazon don't own the TLD that they've registered, otherwise it's unlikely that they'd delegate boycott.amazon to RMS! What policies would you have for who controls what goes underneath a particular TLD?



Re: What about the effect on the root nameservers? (4.25 / 4) (#13)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:33:25 PM EST

A valid point, but these technical issues are quite minor and could be adequately addressed.

It used to be the case that all domains ending in .com, .edu, .gov, .net, .org were all hosted on the root servers. Now, only .edu and .gov are there, with .com, .org, and .net on the "gtld servers". This means that the gtld servers hold records for all .com, .org, .net domains...

My point is that the root and gtld servers already hold vast numbers of records without problems. If unlimited TLDs are allowed, the root servers would need a record for each TLD, but that's it. If these records pointed to various other servers, which in turn stored several TLDs each, each server wouldn't take much more burden than the (root, gtld) servers take today.

[ Parent ]

Re: What about the effect on the root nameservers? (3.50 / 2) (#24)
by pw201 on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:12:00 PM EST

My point is that the root and gtld servers already hold vast numbers of records without problems. If unlimited TLDs are allowed, the root servers would need a record for each TLD, but that's it. If these records pointed to various other servers, which in turn stored several TLDs each, each server wouldn't take much more burden than the (root, gtld) servers take today.

Fair enough. What about the issue of delegation though? Who decides which second level domains get created under the new TLDs?



[ Parent ]

Re: What about the effect on the root nameservers? (3.66 / 3) (#36)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:59:46 PM EST

What about the issue of delegation though? Who decides which second level domains get created under the new TLDs?

Since nobody owns or controls TLDs under my scheme, any second level domain (SLD?) can be created, provided someone is willing to pay the fee. Being the first to use a TLD gives you no rights to the TLD, just to the SLD you created above it.

e.g. Amazon can't simply register amazon. They would have to register something like {books|shop|store}.amazon. Anyone else is free (within the bounds of trademark guidelines) to register, for example, naked.amazon (a porn site) or lesbian.amazon (to supplement amazon.org). They don't go through Amazon to do this; they go through a normal registrar and the record is stored on one of the just-off-root servers I described earlier in this thread.

[ Parent ]

TLD limits (3.60 / 5) (#11)
by Caranguejeira on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:12:52 PM EST

Although the issues in the story are legitimate, I don't feel that allowing arbitrary TLDs is the solution.

I agree that of the solution is to eliminate domain name squatting. This is a hard thing to do, but too many TLDs will just get confusing.

I think that rules should be _enforced_ on an extended set of limited TLDs. Say, you can only have a .com if it is for your business, .org if it's for your non-profit organization, .net if you are working on net related stuff or development, etc. A new TLD could be added for people's personal sites, and so forth. The TLD would become an early indictator of the sort of content you might expect from a site.

I know most of you are all for "free speach" and "zero censorship," and I think that TLDs could really help people decide what they want to view without having to resort to flawed filtering programs and the like. Rather than trying to filter sites based on some algorithmic analysis of the content, the filtering could be based off of the TLD.

I also think that part of domain name registration should be a mandatory audit of the site to make sure it is in the right TLD. Of course, this is probably way unrealistic. As there is nothing preventing people from changing their sites whenever they want.

I'm sure my idea leaves too many opportunities for abuse, but in a perfect world...

Unlimited TLDs seems to fix some issues, but it's too chaotic.

That would be REALLY bad (3.88 / 9) (#14)
by Arkady on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:33:37 PM EST

Consider a brief scenario, such as this: Microsoft registers some domains to create a new .microsoft TLD. They then start suing everyone who registersa a .microsoft domain name (or attacking through the ICANN UDRP, same thing). This would essentially give control over that TLD to Microsoft.

While that's not necessarily bad in and of itself, the implications are staggering. Sun would immediately acquire all rights to any domains in the .sun TLD, Apple in .apple or .mac and so on.

This means that generic, open TLD expansion does not solve the problem, it simply moves the domain scarcity issue up a level so all the conflict happens over control of the TLDs instead of the SLDs. This is probably even worse than letting then fight it out over .com names.

To prevent this problem, new TLDs must be chartered for specific uses, as the original TLDs were and as all of OpenNIC's are.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


Re: That would be REALLY bad (4.00 / 3) (#21)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:50:31 PM EST

I haven't been following UDRP closely enough to see how well it's working, though my gut feeling is "not very well". However, one of the key points of unlimited TLD's is that nobody can own any TLD. Period. If UDRP needs to be dramatically rewritten (or replaced) to accomplish this, then so be it.

"Chartering" TLD's solves nothing unless the charter is strictly enforced. And this is extremely hard to do in all but a few limited cases*, which is why it's routinely ignored in .com/org/net-space.


* .edu, for example, where non-vague guidelines on membership are in place. In general cases, such as .com, such guidelines would be impossible to write.. What exactly is a "company"? How can you easily prove you're a "company"? Remember that your answer must scale to non-US companies, and that not all companies are legally incorporated (or should be).

[ Parent ]

Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.66 / 3) (#32)
by Arkady on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:34:15 PM EST

Actaully, by definition, a company is legally incorporated; otherwise it's not a company. That's kind of the point with companies.

I anaturally agree that the Charter must be enforced, otherwise what's the point of having one. They's not that difficult to enforce. If you've a TLD (take .books as the example) chartered for use by book-related material, all you have to do is look at a web site to tell if it's appropriate. A publisher or distributer of books would be fine, as would an author, but an author of magazine articles or a CD distributer would not be. How difficult is that decision?

My point about ownership has to do with trademarks. If _any_ trademark holder gains effective control (it need not be ownership) of a matching TLD, it opens the entire TLD space up to legal disputes over trademark and identity issues.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 1) (#47)
by Michael Leuchtenburg on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:14:09 PM EST

I'm pretty sure a partnership is considered a company, as is a sole proprietorship. That's just two examples of non-incorporated companies.

[ #k5: dyfrgi ]
[ TINK5C ]
[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 2) (#48)
by Arkady on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 06:25:09 PM EST

No, a partnership is a partnership. Yes, it can get its own Tax ID, but it's still not a company. Similar with a sole-proprietorship: it's a different class of thing which can be sert-of independant of it's owner/operator, but it's still not a company.

You have, however, identified the three different types of non-person thingies in the U.S. tax code: sole-proprieter, partnership and company.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 1) (#59)
by Ranger Rick on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 11:47:13 PM EST

Are you sure you're not confusing the word 'company' with 'corporation'? A corporation is a legal entity (along with parnership, sole proprietorship, limited liability corporation), but I always thought 'company' was just a generic umbrella term to apply to any of these... ?

Of course, I'm pretty much picking nits here, but what the hell... ;)

:wq!


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 1) (#60)
by Arkady on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 01:03:39 AM EST

I am using them interchangably, but I've never seen "company" used to refer to an unincorprated business venture. Let's check a dictionary ... *accessing dictionary.com* ... Odd; they do equate them, but in the opposite direction than I'd have assumed.

company:

A business enterprise; a firm.
Abbr. co., co, Co. A partner or partners not specifically named in a firm's title: <CITE> Lee Rogers and Company.</CITE>

corporation:

A group of people combined into or acting as one body.


Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 2) (#65)
by Ranger Rick on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 07:55:16 PM EST

So I guess the correct answer is "the dictionary is sufficiently vague to support either view", since we both looked things up at dictionary.com. :)

:wq!


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (1.50 / 2) (#67)
by Michael Leuchtenburg on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 03:15:18 PM EST

A non-profit can be a corporation.

[ #k5: dyfrgi ]
[ TINK5C ]
[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 1) (#70)
by bse on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 12:01:11 PM EST

well, 2 years of gcse business studies taught me that sole propietors, and partnerships are businesses with unlimited liability. public and private limited (plc and ltd) are companies registered by guarantee. charaties and other non-profit organisations can register as a limited liability company.



---
"Please sir, tell me why, my life's so pitiful, but the future's so bright? When I look ahead, it burns my retinas." -- Pitchshifter - Please Sir
[ Parent ]

Re: That would be REALLY bad (4.00 / 2) (#62)
by Arkady on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 03:01:23 AM EST

Dunno. Maybe .llc or .ltd?

I do think that legally incorporated entities should be cordoned off into their own TLD. For one thing, it means that they can't sue the rest of us over trademark claims to our domains, since they couldn't have them in the first place. It also build in a reasinable guarantee that anybody serving from a .corp (or whatever) domain actually is a (legally incorporated, if not completely legit) business.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 1) (#66)
by Michael Leuchtenburg on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 03:14:03 PM EST

So how 'bout .inc for corporations? Or .corp?

.com is for commercial sites. That's a pretty wide range. Any site that you hope will make you more money is a commercial site, really. So if I put my resume up on the web, it should be at .com, right? But wait, my resume is on my personal page, so it should be .per.. but I'm hoping to make more money because of it. I also have an offer to do consulting there, and some examples of my work. Those examples are also open source projects that I maintain, and the sites are hosted on, guess what, my domain. So where do I belong? Where does my site fit?

Then you start throwing in things like hosting services, such as Geocities (and better sites). They're .com, of course, since they're trying to make money (off advertisements). But the sites themself are personal sites, commercial sites, warez sites (.pirate?), and whatever else you can think of. Should they be on all kinds of different TLDs because they have different content?

[ #k5: dyfrgi ]
[ TINK5C ]
[ Parent ]

Re: That would be REALLY bad (5.00 / 1) (#68)
by Arkady on Fri Oct 06, 2000 at 05:58:31 PM EST

No, I do think there's still a reasonable use for generic TLDs like .com (is now, though it didn't use to be). You've pointed to a few of them in your comment; certainly a monstrousity like GeoCities needs to be run in a generic domain space.

OpenNIC aims to solve this by not charged per-domain, but rather by having a reasonable membership fee for which you can register a certain number of domains with no extra charges.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.00 / 2) (#52)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:54:53 PM EST

Actaully, by definition, a company is legally incorporated; otherwise it's not a company. That's kind of the point with companies.

Sorry. My bad. s/company/for-profit-entity/g. Or should .com only be for registered companies? If so, where do, say, limited partnerships go?

See what I mean about the impossibility of guidelines for all TLD's?

[ Parent ]

Re: That would be REALLY bad (3.50 / 2) (#53)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 08:58:59 PM EST

They's not that difficult to enforce. If you've a TLD (take .books as the example) chartered for use by book-related material, all you have to do is look at a web site to tell if it's appropriate. A publisher or distributer of books would be fine, as would an author, but an author of magazine articles or a CD distributer would not be. How difficult is that decision?

I have to disagree with this. For one thing, it doesn't scale to the 10 million plus .com's out there. Also, how often should we check?

[ Parent ]

Re: That would be REALLY bad (4.00 / 2) (#61)
by Arkady on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 02:58:47 AM EST

You don't check until someone complains, unless you're feeling particularly proactive. Then you scan whenever you're bored.

And it's not a big deal, provided that any given organization only run a limited number of TLDs. Then if you have, to take the ludicrously large scenario, 10 million TLDs withe no more than 100 run by any given org, each org only has to keep up with a small set of domains. If you have 1000 TLDs and no more than 10 per org, the domain distribution comes out about the same.

It's not very difficult if you break out of the "NSI owns the whole ball of wax" way of thinking about it.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
Controlling .com (3.00 / 2) (#51)
by static on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:41:28 PM EST

Have a look at how .com.au is managed for a good example at how badly run the .com domain is. I think it's past time for .com (and .org and .net) to be closed and purged of all the useless domains under similar rules to .com.au. There is simply too much anarchy in .com.

Wade.

[ Parent ]

.com.au doesn't have the answers (3.66 / 3) (#55)
by ajf on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:44:03 PM EST

It doesn't really work as well as it sounds like it might. You can still register almost anything you want provided you have a business name - and at less than $100, it's trivial for large companies to register names like ibelieve.com.au or ivibrate.com.au (to use two examples seen in advertising in the last year or so).

On the positive side, it does make squatting considerably more expensive.



"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson
[ Parent ]
the most important TLD (1.28 / 7) (#17)
by jcterminal on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:41:35 PM EST

no matter how many are made, and/or what they're called, i truely think the most important one would the one that *keeps porn away from children*, and vica versa(sp?). let's just make a .kid for kids, no porn allowed, and .xxx, no kids allowed. problem solved. how hard would it be to have all the porn sites go to .xxx, and for the filter sites/engines/proggies to add 'refuse: anything that ends in .xxx'. there problem solved. what's the goddamned hold-up? let all the dot-communists fight amoungst themselves for domain names. you know what, as a matter of fact, let them suffer with the limited amount of .coms around. if they don't have enough imagination/advertising skills to come up with a good, unique domain name, maybe they shouldn't be on the web. either that or they can start suing those cyber-squatters over what constitutes 'good faith'. maybe once the dust settles the wire will be a little better off...
---==*==---
mind: www.crashspace.org
body: i.jcterminal.com
soul: www.jcterminal.com
Sounds like USENET (3.66 / 6) (#18)
by dj@ on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:41:46 PM EST

I think it's a great idea to provide unlimited TLD's. This makes it sound a lot more like USENET, where the whole system is somewhat self-regulating. If you make your own TLD and other people value it and the contributors to it, it could be carried and validated by most DNS servers. This also sounds a bit like Freenet where the popular stuff gets carried and the rest dies out. BTW, what's stopping someone from starting a new root server? Don't you just need a new client/server framework that listens on a different port?

the most important TLD (2.66 / 6) (#19)
by jcterminal on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:42:00 PM EST

no matter how many are made, and/or what they're called, i truely think the most important one would the one that *keeps porn away from children*, and vica versa(sp?).

let's just make a .kid for kids, no porn allowed, and .xxx, no kids allowed. problem solved. how hard would it be to have all the porn sites go to .xxx, and for the filter sites/engines/proggies to add 'refuse: anything that ends in .xxx'.

there problem solved. what's the goddamned hold-up?

let all the dot-communists fight amoungst themselves for domain names.

you know what, as a matter of fact, let them suffer with the limited amount of .coms around. if they don't have enough imagination/advertising skills to come up with a good, unique domain name, maybe they shouldn't be on the web. either that or they can start suing those cyber-squatters over what constitutes 'good faith'.

maybe once the dust settles the wire will be a little better off...
---==*==---
mind: www.crashspace.org
body: i.jcterminal.com
soul: www.jcterminal.com
Re: the most important TLD (3.50 / 4) (#27)
by dave_d on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:22:43 PM EST

At first thought, I agreed with your idea of a .kids, and a .xxx TLD's, but the more I think about it, I'm not sure that will fix the problem completly. Granted there are those sites, that are fairly obviously porn sites, but there're sites that some don't consider porn, while other people do. Where do those sites fall? For example, say I was a photographer that happened to take pictures of nude people. I call it art, and have a web page, with some pics to show my work. I'm not in the .xxx domain. Some people view my work as p0rn and think I should be in .xxx to protect the children. What's the solution there? As an artist, I don't want to be in the .xxx domain - I'm an artist, not a dealer in porn.

I don't see the same kind of problem with the .kids domain - all sites would have to be 'kid' friendly/safe to be in the domain. The .xxx domain is where things may get hairy.

Maybe we just accept that it wouldn't be a 'perfect' solution, but would be better than what we have now?

[ Parent ]

Re: the most important TLD (2.25 / 4) (#30)
by jcterminal on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:31:17 PM EST

oh, i truely do believe that it would put us a little better off.

of course, when i said 'porn', i meant the sex industry, those that are *obviously* porn sites. you know, the type of places you go to hand over cash for something nice and exploitative... and i use that term loosely (i.e, 'nice').

being an artist myself, i wouldn't include nudes done in an artistic matter. but i can safely assume that any page with the 'free hot sex' (etc... etc...) somewhere on the page would easily fit into the .xxx realm.
---==*==---
mind: www.crashspace.org
body: i.jcterminal.com
soul: www.jcterminal.com
[ Parent ]

Re: the most important TLD (2.66 / 3) (#35)
by dave_d on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:57:46 PM EST

I see what you're saying, and I agree that it would be better than what we have now.

On a somewhat side note - is there a way to force the 'sex industry' to move into the .xxx domain. Obviously they're already in .com and whathaveyou. I can't really see them giving up those already known domain names in leu of .xxx. I can see them grabbing up .xxx in addition to their current domains...

I know there are restrictions on getting into some TLD's (.edu for example), but I don't know of anyone that can force someone to leave (aside from the courts in copyright/trademark infringements) Does anyone know of way to do this?

[ Parent ]

Re: the most important TLD (2.50 / 2) (#40)
by jcterminal on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:29:21 PM EST

oh, there's definately a way to push them over to .xxx

free registration. :D

...well, it'll help. that and we know if they truely wanted to, ICANN could tell all the porn sites 'time to switch, you have no say in the matter.'
---==*==---
mind: www.crashspace.org
body: i.jcterminal.com
soul: www.jcterminal.com
[ Parent ]
Re: the most important TLD (3.00 / 1) (#49)
by dice on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 07:14:06 PM EST

because everyone knows when you have a mess, more regulation will solve it.
...
embrace the anarchy, otherwise you're going to make the system overload
(ICANN|US Gov) has absolutely no place in administrating
basically they say they do because they say so
and you want to expand their powers?


[ Parent ]
Re: the most important TLD (3.00 / 1) (#46)
by logicnazi on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:49:14 PM EST

Yes but are the sites which are obviously porn sites really a problem for filter ware now? It would seem that since children are not paying customers such sites would be more than happy to volountarily submit their addresses to filter ware organizations. If there isn't such a list now one would think that a lit of sites volountarily classifying themselves as inappropriate for children will naturally evolve. Personally I am for a .xxx domain to increase the ease with which interested parties can find their information. Given the huge amount of pornographic viewing online it seems a .xxx domain is in far more demand simply for convience than .org or .biz. .kids however is an extremly poor idea. The only people who will register a .kids domain will be those with money to be made from said children. I doubt their will be a kuro5hin.kids or a linux.kids. Therefore, if .kids is used to filter content, children will end trapped in an anti-educational action figure selling enviornment closely resembling early morning cartoons.

[ Parent ]
Re: the most important TLD (4.00 / 2) (#43)
by Mitheral on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:16:01 PM EST

I don't think the .kids would be any more clear cut than the art-porn line. Some examples:
1) How about a web site of "Samantha has two mommies"
2) Sex education sites
3) WWF site; lots of kids watch it, they even have action figures.
4) How about religion sites? I sure wouldn't want the CofS; Church of Bob; or most other religions recruiting my kids on a "safe" domain
5) pro-life or anti-abortion?

These are just a few that I thought of off the top of my head I'm sure everyone here could add something they would want to protect there kids from that another person would want to put in .kids

[ Parent ]

Re: the most important TLD (3.60 / 5) (#28)
by reshippie on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:28:38 PM EST

It won't work. First of all, .xxx is too easy to block, and some porn sites won't go for it. A .kids would be nice, but you'd need a whole committee set up to judge who gets in a who doesn't.

Who is going to decide what constitutes porn, and what is art with naked people? Who is going to decide what is good for kids, what is advertising, and what should be in the general domain.

It's a nice looking bucket, but it doesn't hold any water.

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)
[ Parent ]

Uhhh, that would make DNS (2.80 / 5) (#22)
by el_guapo on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 01:53:03 PM EST

quite the beast. I think the easy way is to nix the *net/gov/mil etc. and implement 1 TLD per country and let the countries handle it from there. then my straightpoop.org would be straightpoop.org.usa. my $.02
mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
Dynamic hosting of Second-Level domains (3.83 / 6) (#26)
by sugarman on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:21:56 PM EST

This currently happens in certain locations, such as sourceforge and the like. Wouldn't this help to alleviate the problem?

Basically, allow news.com to host other domains cnn.news.com, bbc.news.com, whatever. Cnet could still maintain their news.com site, (though arguably, they should be news.cnet.com), and allow the other companies to have their domain in the same space as well.

Yeah, I know there are other issues that would be involved, but I think this is a simpler extension of the existing format. SLD holders would basically be intermediary jurisdictions.


--sugarman--

Re: Dynamic hosting of Second-Level domains (3.00 / 1) (#69)
by bse on Sun Oct 08, 2000 at 11:47:45 AM EST

i do believe thats how tld's such as uk.com, co.uk, and the like work.. except at a much larger scale, of course.


on another note, has anyone mentioned IPv6? what are the implications with tld's and that? i would imagine much more choice would have to be created, and an open plan domain name scheme (ala opennic) would suit it much better than what we have today.

how about a version of the usenet method.. news.geek.kuro5hin, with kuro5hin owning that, and allowing such things as news.geek.kuro5hin.mlp and the like.


just my 2 british pennies =)

---
"Please sir, tell me why, my life's so pitiful, but the future's so bright? When I look ahead, it burns my retinas." -- Pitchshifter - Please Sir
[ Parent ]

Don't we have a choice (3.50 / 6) (#29)
by SIGFPE on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:30:51 PM EST

I don't understand this TLD stuff at all. Anyone can set up a name server like http://www.alternic.org. If a bunch of people want their own TLD they can just set up their own name server. Of course they then have to promote it but that's no different from promoting any other product. Why isn't this happening? Why is everyone giving in to ICANN's tyranny? Obviously I am asking stupid questions because people aren't using alternatives but I'd like someone to explain the politics behind this to me!
SIGFPE
Re: Don't we have a choice (4.40 / 5) (#33)
by jay.gatsby on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:46:58 PM EST

Well, as I understand it, the reason nobody does this en masse is that in order for an alternative to work, it would have to be used by the majority of the users. Now, just imagine either (a) trying to walk AOL users through changing their DNS settings or (b) convincing AOL to change their default DNS settings to use Alternic (or some other option). Option (a) isn't likely, since many AOL users aren't computer literate enough to make such changes. Option (b) is bad, because if AOL *were* to make the switchover, and suddenly NASCARfan1099 can't get to Cousin Wilbur's "Kyle Petty 4-ever" page because his the URL he's got uses a domain name not registered with Alternic, then the complaints are going to start rolling in.

Basically, such a change would almost require the cooperation of all major ISPs as well as a large quantity of smaller ones in order for it to be effective. Unfortunate as it may be, a smattering of technically knowledgeable end users using an alternative service isn't going to be really effective, I'm afraid.

One other consideration is this: does Alternic have the resources to handle the number of DNS requests that would pass through their boxen if even 5% of the total traffic on the internet were to start using their DNS today? While they well may have the infrastructure to handle this (and I have no idea if they do or they don't), a failure in the DNS service would be a major blow to the functionality of the 'net as we know it today . . . accessing sites that are hosted via name-based virtual hosting, instead of by ip-based virtual hosting would become virtually impossible (as I understand it) unless the web host made the site available via http://[ip_address]/~sitename, and end users knew this as an alternate route.

-------
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
-- Proverbs 18.2
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't we have a choice (4.00 / 4) (#44)
by Mitheral on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 04:30:08 PM EST

Basically, such a change would almost require the cooperation of all major ISPs as well as a large quantity of smaller ones in order for it to be effective.

Or it may only require one major player to come on line and support the alternet DNS servers. Imagine Cisco saying they were going to support the OpenNIC project. Overnight everyone would be racing to support it.

Or it may require 30% of the smaller players supporting it to get the ball rolling. Anyone know what the critical mass for wide spread aceptance of any system is on the internet as a percentage of bandwidth ?

Unfortunate as it may be, a smattering of technically knowledgeable end users using an alternative service isn't going to be really effective, I'm afraid

This is how anything on the internet gets started. Tim Berners-Lee didn't up and decide to create a protocol that the great unwashed think is the net. It took three years of promotion to get the ball rolling.

[ Parent ]

Re: Don't we have a choice (2.50 / 2) (#45)
by jay.gatsby on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 05:01:44 PM EST

OK, OK . . . my previous post was posted from a condition of ignorance, I was operating under the assumption that if one switched to using DNS servers operating under (for example) the OpenNIC servers, that domain names registered under current TLDs wouldn't resolve any more. Dumb me!

Well, now I've got my machine using some of the public OpenNIC servers, and things are working quite nicely! Guess I shouldn't have been so skeptical . . . in any case, from my brief perusal of the page, OpenNIC looks to be a worthy cause to support . . . methinks I'll do more research on 'em.

-------
A fool does not delight in understanding, but only in revealing his own mind."
-- Proverbs 18.2
[ Parent ]

Re: Don't we have a choice (4.20 / 5) (#38)
by Arkady on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 03:08:48 PM EST

We are doing at The OpenNIC (a project started from an article here at K5, by the way ;-). Check out the site at www.opennic.unrated.net. We're working on getting OpenNIC into the Linux and BSD distros and on fielding a set of end-user DNS servers around the world for it.

Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.


[ Parent ]
(2.00 / 4) (#31)
by psicE on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:31:58 PM EST

Instead of adding infinite TLDs, just remove them. Whenever there is a dispute over names, the name first goes to the noncommercial user and then to the first incorporated. If the name is not used within 14 days or has a page saying "This Domain is For Sale", then give it to the next person on the list (to eliminate cybersquatters; if they're using it for a page other than a buy-me-im-a-domain page, it's not cybersquatting).

Re: removal of unused SLDs (3.00 / 2) (#54)
by scjody on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 09:13:06 PM EST

What do you mean, "not used"? What if a company registers a domain and uses it for email only? What if they're selling the domain for web use only, but retaining email rights (it's happened..)

I agree with the principle of banning domains bought only for sale, but the implementation would be too complex. Of course, I would be delighted to be proven wrong :)

[ Parent ]

Restrict Registration? (2.33 / 3) (#34)
by reshippie on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 02:47:54 PM EST

I know that many people are against retrictions of any kind, I am too, for the most part. But what I'm thinking about is for Corporations. Set a limit, of say, oh 25 per TLD. No more than that could be registered to any company.

If a company wishes to have some of its employees register under their own private name, well, you can't stop companies from trying to get around rules. What they could do is say that whoever owns the name has sole discretion(sp?) for its use, and transfer. Basically, say that employees can do favors for their company, but don't allow the company control over it. An employee leaves, he/she still retains rights and control of the domain name.

my $0.02

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)

OpenNIC (4.25 / 4) (#56)
by Chris Andreasen on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:14:42 PM EST

I'm surprised no one has mentioned this yet...
OpenNIC is trying to do something very similar... basically anyone at any time can propose a new TLD and members (any natural person [read: non-corporation] can join for free) vote on whether or not to accept it into the Tier 1 DNS servers. If it's accepted, your new TLD is now accessible to anyone using an openDNS server.
There are some rules laid down, such as each TLD is responsible for maintaining a DNS server with all of the domains registered with it, each TLD must mirror the Tier 1 DNS server, each TLD is responsible for enforcing the guidelines that were proposed upon its creation (like no porn or violence under a .kids TLD), etc.
See http://www.opennic.unrated.net/ (http://www.opennic/ if you're using an openDNS server :^) ) for more details. Bear in mind that this project is still just branching out of humble beginnings, but it certainly has potential...
--------
Is public worship then, a sin,
That for devotions paid to Bacchus
The lictors dare to run us in,
and resolutely thump and whack us?

Re: OpenNIC (2.00 / 1) (#57)
by Chris Andreasen on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:24:22 PM EST

Pardon my hastiness... the existence of opennic has been mentioned already, albeit only briefly.
--------
Is public worship then, a sin,
That for devotions paid to Bacchus
The lictors dare to run us in,
and resolutely thump and whack us?

[ Parent ]
Search engines are more important than DNS Names (3.00 / 2) (#58)
by jlinwood on Wed Oct 04, 2000 at 10:51:13 PM EST

Search engines are going to be more important than DNS names in the next few years - as the number of TLD's increases exponentially, using search engines to find the specific information you're looking for will become more important. And furthermore, does anyone use books.com to buy books? music.com to buy music, software.com to buy software? No, you use a web site you either saw an ad for, or a friend/family member/etc recommended.

Squatting (3.00 / 2) (#63)
by aphrael on Thu Oct 05, 2000 at 05:47:53 PM EST

One of the things I don't understand about ICANN's TLD expansion policy is how they are going to prevent the new domains from being immediately gobbled up by squatters, just as the old domains were ....

unlimited TLDs - dumb, unworkable idea (none / 0) (#71)
by slapdash on Thu Oct 12, 2000 at 10:35:18 AM EST

opennic and all the other "tld registries" that are about miss the point.

It's a great idea to have unlimited TLDs, but it can't work in practice.

What do you do when you have a tld, something like ".areshit", and someone comes and registers "aol.areshit" and sets up a websitre to prove the point?

The answer is that you get sued, first by AOL who will shut force you to remove the delegation and then by your customer for cancelling their domain.

Ultimately you end up losing all your money to corporate lawyer or WIPO and end up having nothing.

There are enough TLDs out there. So what if English words are all taken? "Kuro5hin" is not an english word but people seem to find it easily enough.

The Trouble with TLD's | 71 comments (70 topical, 1 editorial, 0 hidden)
Display: Sort:

kuro5hin.org

[XML]
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.

Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!