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

ICANN screws the pooch on new TLD's

By rusty in Op-Ed
Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:15:11 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)

According to Wired, ICANN has finally decided on seven new top-level domain, which will supposedly join .com and the gang sometime next spring. The winners are:

  • .biz
  • .info
  • .name
  • .pro
  • .museum
  • .aero
  • .coop
The only reason this is interesting, IMO, is because of how idiotic these new TLDs are. Not surprising, mind you, but interesting.

So, was anyone else struck by the odd choices here? ".biz" was probably inevitable, but I can't even figure out what some of these others are for.
  • .pro: Professionals? Protractors? Pronunciation guides? Pronouns? What the hell is this for?
  • .museum: Are museums a major portion of the net? I can't recall ever, in my life, having looked at a museum website. Now they get their own TLD? Coming next year: .photo-kiosk and .larrys-truck-repair!
  • .aero: Let's see... "boeing.aero", "airbus.aero"... ummm, yeah that's about it. Way to expand the scope of the net.
  • .coop: One URL: "chicken.coop". That's all I have to say on this one.
  • .name: So who gets to own "bob.smith.name"? This one'll be a barrel of litigious fun.
  • .info: Having chosen one (relatively) good tld, and eight that are way too specific, ICANN must have thrown this one in so that the "way too general" lobby was placated. I mean, think for a minute here. Everything on the net is "info". It's an information medium. Look at the application for this one; the same people also proposed ".web" and ".site". We're playing with the mental giants now, folks.
ICANN, once again, has demonstrated that it is just dumb. So I'll close with a plea for you to support OpenNIC. We already have the means and the motive to just ignore ICANN and improve the DNS heirarchy ourselves. Won't you please help?


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


Dumbest new TLD
o .biz 7%
o .pro 3%
o .aero 30%
o .name 5%
o .info 3%
o .coop 15%
o .museum 33%

Votes: 241
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Wired
o the application
o OpenNIC
o Also by rusty

Display: Sort:
ICANN screws the pooch on new TLD's | 83 comments (83 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)
Aero (3.00 / 9) (#1)
by aphrael on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 07:08:45 PM EST

Might also be useful for airlines --- southwest.aero, united.aero, etc. Not that this is going to expand the net *much*, but it might set a good precedent for things like .tv or .movie (which could get hollywood movie websites moved out of .com, a good thing if i've ever heard one).

Wake up! (3.42 / 7) (#4)
by vsync on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 07:38:34 PM EST

.tv is already owned by the teensy-weensy country of Tuvalu, which sold it off to some company that now rips off TV stations. They'll rip off ordinary people too, though... I know because a coworker of mine got chia.tv.

"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 ]
darn. (1.00 / 1) (#57)
by Ricdude on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 11:53:46 AM EST

someone already got kill-your.tv, too. >=(

[ Parent ]
& (none / 0) (#71)
by titus-g on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 08:58:59 AM EST


--"Essentially madness is like charity, it begins at home" --
[ Parent ]

DotTV (2.50 / 2) (#62)
by KindBud on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 04:10:21 PM EST

I'm the proud registrant for tvsucks.tv as well as its sister domain tvrocks.tv. Anybody got an idea for what to do with them? I was thinking of offering vanity email addresses, like babylon5@tvrocks.tv or dharmaandgreg@tvsucks.tv.

What do you think?

just roll a fatty

[ Parent ]

dot-sarcasm? (4.00 / 6) (#5)
by rusty on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 07:55:21 PM EST

Aero Might also be useful for airlines

Yeah, I know... but I had my rant on. Can't slow down for some pesky little detail like that. :-)

Besides, the point still stands. Despite the massive popular outcry, heard for months on the web, and in the general media, of "We demand a TLD for the aerospace industry!" I feel that ICANN should hold itself above the petty and easily manipulated whims of the people, and make decisions with a firm guiding hand on the tiller.

Other new TLD's that the foolish public is just dying to see include ".sanitation", ".amtrak", and ".showtime-rotisserie-grill", but you don't see those being approved do you? No, I say bravo to the cooler heads at ICANN, and hope they continue to lead with the same dot-sagacity.

Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

dot-Excellent. (3.28 / 7) (#14)
by pb on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 09:00:28 PM EST

I refrained from joking about the '.dot' TLD, for sites like 'slash.dot' (confusing, isn't it?) and 'com.dot' (for Sun, since 'dot.com' is taken; they're not the dot in "dot.com", ha ha ha!) and 'polka.dot'.... why, the possibilities are endless!

I think we need a '.YOW' TLD for funny sites, and a .TLD TLD, for TLD discussion sites; take back the internet, one TLD at a time, YOW!
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]
.movie is a -much- better idea. (3.60 / 5) (#24)
by Parity on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 11:39:02 PM EST

The airlines -already- have the appropriate .coms, and they aren't going to give them up, but Hollywood continues to pollute namespace with www.latestblockbusterwannabe.com every time they come up with a new release; .aero won't -unpollute- namespace because you know united is not going to give up unitedairlines.com though they will -also- take united.aero; but Hollywood could conceivably take blackwaspavenger.movie and leave blackwaspavenger.com alone... (substitute more realistic names, obviously, I'm not a hollywood exec... :))

Imagine if there were a .com for every movie already...
shining.com, halloween.com, sabrina.com, alcatraz.com,
jaws.com... and they would just sit there, telling you about a long-ago movie. (Cases in point are obviously memorable since I remember them, but I'm sure there will be a number of movie names that eat up potentially useful namespace for a flop... it'd be nice to shove them into their own hollywood ghetto...)

Parity None

[ Parent ]
iThink ICANN, iThink ICANN... (3.11 / 9) (#2)
by pb on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 07:11:33 PM EST

Thanks, Rusty, I got a good chuckle out of that!

What happened to the cool TLD ideas, like 'bat', and 'exe'? (too bad command.com is already taken) Incidentally, all non-country-code TLD's should be three letters; there ought to be a law...

I think they should abolish the system altogether. You "register" whatever "name" you want, dammit. Then you can register all of these stupid names and more, and I still don't have to go there.

Incidentally, by accepting my plan, you agree to give me the domain name 'x'. Send me e-mail at p@x; send mail to root at r@x... :)
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
If you own that... (3.83 / 6) (#20)
by Potatoswatter on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 10:46:17 PM EST

... you'll get e-mail to the m@x!


myQuotient = myDividend/*myDivisorPtr; For multiple languages in the same function, see Upper/Mute in my diary! */;
[ Parent ]

Wheres the .porn or .xxx or .sex TLD (3.33 / 12) (#3)
by spacy on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 07:26:25 PM EST

I can't believe they didn't decide on a porn TLD. I'm tired of randomly turning up porn on the www. So what now- www.horny-sluts.info? WTF? I guess www.horny-sluts.pro fits tho.

xxx domain (2.85 / 7) (#7)
by erotus on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:26:10 PM EST

"I guess www.horny-sluts.pro fits tho."

Actually I heard a rumor that .xxx was proposed and turned down by ICANN. Does anyone know if this is true? It seems to me that www.horny-sluts.xxx would fit the bill better.

[ Parent ]
I heard (4.00 / 7) (#12)
by rusty on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:40:01 PM EST

I heard that .xxx was turned down because none of the companies proposing it were deemed capable of administering the tld. The whole system's just too broken for words, really.

Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
RE: xxx domain (2.50 / 2) (#23)
by UrLord on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 11:36:39 PM EST

Alternic uses the .xxx and .porn (along with .lnx for linux among others) already. Check out http://www.alternic.org

They have a neat little history.

We can't change society in a day, we have to change ourselves first from the inside out.
[ Parent ]

xxx tld (3.00 / 4) (#25)
by ODiV on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:02:59 AM EST

"I'm tired of randomly turning up porn on the www."

The introduction of a tld for porn wouldn't likely make porn on the current tlds any less present. Unless they're forced, I can't see the current porn webmasters giving up their current urls. And what right does anyone have to force them to .xxx?

[ odiv.net ]
[ Parent ]
Why .porn and .kids is a bad idea (3.83 / 6) (#30)
by jesterzog on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 01:48:07 AM EST

There was a slashdot story on this a few days ago and the general feeling about it was that .porn, .xxx and .kids weren't as good an idea as they might look on the surface.

Some people would put it down to a breed of slashdot paranoia but the general feeling seemed to be that it might cause governments to force all porn sites to be under the porn TLD's so they could be filtered easily.

If you temporarily ignore the objections of the porn site owners, it might seem very useful and convenient. But then there's the problems with what's really porn? Are naturist photos porn? Technically they're just people walking around without clothes on, but that qualifies as pornography to some people, or at the very least objectionable material. Most naturists however would not want to be classified as pornographic because it's associating them with something they relly have nothing to do with. What about pictures of women whose skirts are higher than their ankles? Should that be under the .porn TLD?

Then there's .kids. What's appropriate for kids? There was a good /. comment about this one that pointed out "the real problem isn't the clear-cut cases, it's the weird fringe ones. Should you let a site like Jessi The Kid onto the .kids domain, even though it's creepy as hell? How about Child Supermodels which seems to be another creep out site?"

Personally I think that it's a good idea not letting in .porn and .kids. They're very volatile territory and the definitions associated with them are far to subjective. The only time they should be available, IMHO, is if and when TLD's are abolished completely.

jesterzog Fight the light

[ Parent ]
.xxx / .kids (3.50 / 2) (#37)
by codemonkey_uk on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 05:56:48 AM EST

When I see these TLD proposed, I don't see anyone beeing forced to use them, and with .xxx I don't even see anyone beeing forced not to use it.

.kids would nead to be regulated. That could be a problem, who would regulate it? (& who would regulate the regulators?).

Then what problem does .xxx solve? You may ask. None of the current "pornmasters" would want to move their site. Its a good point, but I don't think it matters.

I do think that if a .xxx was introduced then NEW porno sites would choose this TLD. Over time, the .com polution would be reduced (not eliminated). Which is a good thing. I think.

"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
.museum (3.00 / 10) (#6)
by Chuq on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:07:28 PM EST


of all the TLDs...

I know we like to whinge and complain that the proposed (now confirmed) TLDs are stupid, and they miss out ones that are obviously needed - how about we have a poll of about 50 TLDs and just get a yes/no on each one - then we get a % support for them..

Of course it won't make a shit of difference to ICANN :(

For the record:
.info and .name are good (although I would have preferred .home as a "personal" domain, many people would think home=homepage)
.biz - another .com clone
.web - isn't that what the www. at the start is for?
.pro - is for professionals I believe, but will the porn industry make use of it? ;)
.museum, .aero - there are thousands of industries with more need for their own domain name than these two.. can't museums, libraries, schools go into .edu?

Ones that WOULD have been good:
*maybe* .air for wireless networks (aero reminded me of that one)
.kids and .xxx of course
.med for hospitals, doctors, possibly? Or perhaps a whole TLD for "industry" (.ind) with .aero, .med, .food, etc underneath it?

Additional Idea #1: Scrap it and go with the newsgroup heirarachy

Additional Idea #2: Make people use the correct TLD (com = company, org = organisation etc)

.web (2.40 / 5) (#11)
by interiot on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:37:48 PM EST

For those who prefer the AOL-wide web, there's .web -- It's a .net, only more sticky.   Kind of like a portal minus the opening.   Bang your head against that one.

[ Parent ]
If I weren't in a hurry I'd flame you better (2.62 / 8) (#16)
by h2odragon on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 09:42:23 PM EST

This is off topic but is this really good form? If you're going to be saying the same thing everywhere what difference is there to be between forums? No doubt your deathless prose deserves as wide an audience as possible...

To be topical, which newsgroup heirarchy did you have in mind? Will registering a domain be subject to a vote by whatever part of the community cares enough? Shall we just list our IPs directly on usenet instead? ... in short, WTF are you talking about?

"make people" do anything implies somebody to do the making. Should political parties be .org's? Even obvious money grubbing industry fronts, like say, the US Democrats? This site and /. should be .net; right? (kuro5hin.net and .com are both registered to to the same guy, same address but different names and nameservers from .org... and no DNS at the moment.) Let's turn that authority over to ICANN, too; and let their stellar track record of fair descion making and representative process extend into classifying some fundamentally new things.

[ Parent ]

Will the museums in France be using .museum? (4.00 / 6) (#17)
by jason on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 09:47:39 PM EST

Safe bet is that there will be no Louvre.museum or Rodin.museum. IIRC, French law requires a preference for using French. I'm assuming this carries over into domain names. There is one French person currently on the board, which makes me wonder how much the board even listens to itself...

Anyone know the position of non-English groups on purely English TLDs?

Jason, wondering if .info should be reserved for .info files...

[ Parent ]

"Museum" is latin (none / 0) (#56)
by loner on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 11:03:14 AM EST

The word "museum" comes from Latin. It's not English per-se, and I don't think the French are that hostile to latin terms. Overall, only the .biz and .name don't fit within the French language.

Then again, the www in www.louvre.fr is not very French either ;>

[ Parent ]

...and the list goes on (2.00 / 1) (#69)
by AArthur on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 02:03:00 AM EST

Of course you could name half a dozen other good TLDs.

For example .agr for farmers, and agriculutural bussinesses. They don't really fit into a "dot-com" in the traditional sense, but they certainly aren't non-profit either. Kind of like how in New York, you can register a vechicle as Standard Goverment, Commerical, or Agricultural.

Andrew B. Arthur | aarthur@imaclinux.net | http://hvcc.edu/~aa310264
[ Parent ]

can't believe I'm defending ICANN... (3.00 / 1) (#78)
by chickenhead on Sun Nov 19, 2000 at 02:13:16 AM EST

...but they are not just creating new gTLDs from nothing. They're taking very specific proposals from organizations that want to administer those domains. .museum got chosen because, among other reasons, someone who checked out to be pretty credible put together a proposal that sounded to ICANN like it would work. .health, likewise, was chosen in part because someone at the WHO decided to ask for it, formally.

Don't get me wrong. I don't like the process or its results.

But ICANN will not create a new top-level domain that doesn't have a corresponding proposal to jump through all the hoops they set up. That's just not how it works.

[ Parent ]

Hmm. (none / 0) (#81)
by Dolgan on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 11:36:59 AM EST

It works. They're just trying to add more buzz words.

[ Parent ]
Possible uses for .museum (2.42 / 7) (#8)
by Potsy on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:28:30 PM EST

Well, I can think of a few uses for ".museum". Note that these are just examples and not a comprehensive list, so please don't flame me saying "Only two?! That's all you can think of?"
  • Martin Hart's excellent Widescreen Museum, which has information on big-screen film formats like Todd-AO and Cinerama.
  • Textfiles.com, a site with historical information about the old BBS scene

Seriously, how many times have you found a neat site that calls itself "The (foo) Internet Shrine" or something like that? The ".museum" TLD is pretty good for something like that. Of course, ".fan" would have been nice, too.

I think the problem is not that they have decided to pick ".museum", it's that they decided to pick it as one of only seven new TLDs. If there were say, a thousand new TLDs, and this were just one of them, then there would be no objection. But to declare it as a "top-seven" priority, as it were, is pretty silly -- I won't disagree with that.

Re: Possible uses for .museum (3.66 / 6) (#10)
by gunner800 on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:37:46 PM EST

It would be a good way to distinguish a certain style of web content from other .com's and .org's, but it is intended for use exclusively by "accredited" museums.

So physical museums get to use it, and virtual ones are still SOL.

---Ignore poorly-chosen handle for purpose of gun-control discussions.
[ Parent ]

Oh boy (3.00 / 5) (#15)
by Potsy on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 09:34:49 PM EST

physical museums get to use it, and virtual ones are still SOL

Damn, in that case, I take it back. It really is stupid.

[ Parent ]

"Official" (4.00 / 3) (#19)
by Demona on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 09:49:09 PM EST

A great deal of the clamor around everything, not just the Internet, revolves around whether it is "approved" or "official". The RFC's that spelled out the rules for the old TLD's were simple and straightforward -- too bad the majority ignored them, and Network Solutions first went along with it and now actively encourages such idiocy. Instead of "Sorry, you're not an Internet provider or backbone, you can't have .net" or "Sorry, you're not an individual or non-profit organization, you can't have .org", we get crap like "Register your domain in ALL these TLD's so nobody can steal it!"

Commercial, non-profit and individual are still simple and straightforward -- they may not be true binary distinctions, but they're close enough for practical purposes. But now, who will decide who is a "legitimate museum", or "legitimate professional"? Bad craziness and interesting times...

[ Parent ]

Virtual museums aren't completely out of luck (none / 0) (#77)
by The Phantom Blot on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 07:21:53 PM EST

According to section E17 of the MDMA's application to ICANN, the major criterion they will be applying when making decisions about who gets to use the .museum TLD is International Council of Museum's official definition of a museum. True, it currently does not include non-corporeal institutions, but that's an issue that has been under discussion in that group for a while. Since September, there's been an ammendment on the table that would add some such institutions to the list. ICOM operates a little slowly, though, so it may be a while before we know if the ammendment is going to go through.

[ Parent ]
Perhaps a better choice.... (3.33 / 6) (#13)
by oleandrin on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:57:52 PM EST

...would have been ".archive"? Archive is a more general term for what a museum does than "museum" itself. You could say "Museum" implements "Archive".

There are many sites which could be described as "archives" and not "museums", such as the late (?) Deja.

Ah, but then Deja also implements "Searchable", ne. Perhaps it's time to allow multiple inheritance/interfaces in the DNS heirarchy.

[ Parent ]

I guess that's proof then (4.16 / 18) (#9)
by analog on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 08:35:06 PM EST

ICANN has been making all their meetings closed door so nobody can see that they've been spending the majority of their budget on crack...

Dumbest new TDL Poll (2.60 / 5) (#18)
by earthling on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 09:48:48 PM EST

Darn, why isn't there a "All of the above" choice?

"I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick."

Damn (3.50 / 2) (#82)
by Dolgan on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 11:39:13 AM EST

Why are you complaining about the crappy of options?

[ Parent ]
More than One .Coop (2.00 / 5) (#21)
by the Epopt on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 11:06:53 PM EST

.coop: One URL: "chicken.coop". That's all I have to say on this one.

No, two URLs. I want "little.deuce.coop."

Most people who need to be shot need to be shot soon and a lot.
Very few people need to be shot later or just a little.

s.coop (3.42 / 7) (#22)
by fluffy grue on Thu Nov 16, 2000 at 11:15:07 PM EST

s.coop would be a good name for a free/cheap second-level domain provider. Like, kuro5hin.runs.s.coop, or icecream.s.coop. news.s.coop! mashed.potatoes.come.served.with.a.s.coop! We could have fun for hours with this!

Well, minutes anyway.
"Is not a quine" is not a quine.
I have a master's degree in science!

[ Hug Your Trikuare ]
[ Parent ]

One more (2.83 / 6) (#29)
by Potsy on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 01:00:56 AM EST

Or how about poop.s.coop? I think I'll register that one...

[ Parent ]
Creative.coop (none / 0) (#66)
by serrated on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 07:08:53 PM EST

And I want Poop.S.coop
-It's basically death on a stick- Jerry Moffat in Hard Grit
[ Parent ]
OpenNIC (3.25 / 4) (#26)
by Delirium on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:16:06 AM EST

I'm not quite sure how this OpenNIC thing is supposed to work - is it possible to set up your system so that both OpenNIC and normal ICANN DNS names will resolve properly with no conflicts? If yes, why don't we see tech-oriented sites (such as k5, for example) with OpenNIC names (possibly in addition to normal DNS names, at least for now) and posting links with both forms as well to facilitate increased OpenNIC usage? I don't see how it's supposed to be adopted if nobody uses it...

Yep; been there, doing that (3.33 / 3) (#28)
by analog on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:48:42 AM EST

If you look around the OpenNIC site (haven't been there in a while and Robin was doing some remodeling last time I was, so can't say for sure where everything is) you'll find some lists of nameservers and how to use them. If you're running a standard desktop machine, just point your DNS (resolv.conf in Linux, for example) at one or two of the public servers and you're good to go.

I run my own nameserver (my ISP's is down more than up), and set it up as recommended on the OpenNIC page; I've been running that way for a few months now and have had no problems.

[ Parent ]

What is the URL? (3.00 / 1) (#64)
by spectatorion on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 05:01:59 PM EST

I would be interested in seeing an OpenNIC site in action. maybe post some specs/tips & how you accomplished this.

[ Parent ]
Oops... sorry 'bout that (4.00 / 1) (#68)
by analog on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 10:32:30 PM EST

www.opennic.unrated.net or www.opennic for those already on the system.

As far as specs & tips, I basically just followed the instructions on this page.

[ Parent ]

Re: OpenNIC (2.00 / 1) (#73)
by Arkady on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 03:53:47 PM EST

Well, Rusty _does_ have an OpenNIC domain registered, but not for K5. Shame, but I can understand: he's a really busy guy; I'm sure he'll get around to it. Would it fit in one of our existing TLDs (as k5.bbs or k5.null, for example) or would it be better to put up a new one that's more appropriate (k5.online; k5.community; k5.weblog; k5.zine)?

By the way, I'm sorry I haven't been on to catch this thread. I was at the ICANN meetings and then at Comdex, so I've been travelling and had no time to get online except to check email. ;-)


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 ]
.coop == Cooperative? (2.75 / 4) (#27)
by needless on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:24:54 AM EST

Not that I think it's a good idea, but that's my guess.

Re: Cooperatives (3.50 / 2) (#74)
by Arkady on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 03:56:47 PM EST

This is a good one, people. I've been wanting it for a long time. It's propsed by the National Coop. Business Association which, though it's not the best group to run it, is still reasonable. I make my living working for a coop consulting company and we're jonesing to register cliq.coop so we can ditch our .com domain.

I think it's a good way to get cooperatives more into the public eye and, along with .union, was one of the two I'd asked to consider partnering with OpenNIC if they were rejected.

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 ]
OpenNIC (4.00 / 5) (#31)
by acm on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 02:35:06 AM EST

ICANN, once again, has demonstrated that it is just dumb. So I'll close with a plea for you to support OpenNIC.

Lets take a look at the current TLD's for OpenNIC:

  • .opennic
  • .null
  • .oss
  • .parody

  • Pending TLD's:

  • .geek

  • Proposed TLD's:

  • .search
  • .bbs
  • .beta

  • Hmm.. they sound just as specific as the ones ICANN came up with, except these almost all relate to nerds. Why switch one crappy TLD register for another?


    Democracy (3.00 / 4) (#35)
    by rusty on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 04:23:54 AM EST

    The difference here is that OpenNIC creates new TLD's in an open and democratic manner. See their creating a new TLD page for info on the process. Basically, an interested party can create a proposal for a new TLD, and then call for a vote. None of this behind-closed-doors meeting that then spews forth nonsense.

    My point wasn't really that the TLD's are dumb in and of themselves. They are dumb in the context of the fact that they are the only seven that we're likely to see in the near future from ICANN. If they were seven among many, fine, but to say "...and these are the only new general categories for net content that we need" is just idiotic.

    Not the real rusty
    [ Parent ]

    Specificity is a Good Thing (3.00 / 1) (#75)
    by Arkady on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 04:09:04 PM EST

    Having well categorized and structered TLDs allows us to (as we once could) know something about the person, organization or site carrying a particular domain name. The generics provide an important open playground for people, but the Chartered (or, in ICANN's terminology, Restricted) TLDs give us a structured space that we can use, among other things, to limit the extent to which the intellectual property lawyers can exert control over DNS.

    .parody was set up for exactly this reason: since only parody systems are allowed to hold .parody domains, a trademark holder _cannot_ hold [trademark].parody. Thus, no "reasonable" user can mistake a .parody domain for the trademark holder's own domain and therefore the trademark holder cannot shut down a parody site claiming trademark violation. That sort of thig is why we need a strongly chartered TLD set.

    Notice, too, that .null is almost generic in that the only restrictions are no commerce and no corporations.


    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 ]
    New TDLs should be specific (3.00 / 6) (#32)
    by earthling on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 02:45:41 AM EST

    I'm not going to say how idiotic those seven new TDLs approved by ICANN are. OK, I will: What the hell were they thinking? .biz? What purpose in life does it have? The only thing that it accomplish is create a new TDL for companies to grab and have it redirected to their .com. Oh... thinking about it, that *does* accomplish something: money for the registrars. Sorry, for a moment, I forgotten that between money and common sense, money always win.

    What I would like to see are more specifics TDLs. A reader suggested .movie (or .mov, I'm a big fan of three letters for non-countries TDL). Instead of polluting the .com space with "the-official-site-of-bob-the movie-by-paramount-pictures-international.com", all the hollywood promotion and hype-building sites could go to the same place. It would keep the .com more sane, and make it easier to find movie sites (nameofthemovie.com basicly never works).

    What about a .mail? Those "Free Internet Email" sites are hording .com/net/org names like there's no tomorrow to offer them as choices of email addresses. Why not give them a .mail TDL and let them play in it instead?

    Many people suggested .xxx (or .sex or whatever) and .kid. I'm not so sure they are good ideas. Here's why. .kid sounds to me like a recipe for brainwashing our kids to death with targeted advertising. And unless they regulate that TDL, we all know that we're going to end up with abominations like sex.kid hidden in some forsaken country, and it's not going to be any safer to surf that any other TDL. Which brings me to .xxx. Now unlike internet startups who advertise on tv and in magazines and newspapers, adult website don't need a easy-to-remember name to make money, they earn their lives with catchy banners. So a .xxx TDL would not help unclog the other TDLs, because, really, who needs lustfulferrets.com? On the other hand, it would make the lifes of censorware makers so much easier, something I'm very much opposed to in principle.

    A recent idea that I really liked was the .health proposal by the U.N. World Health Organisation (WHO). They're basicaly proposing a regulated TDL for health websites. I really liked that: sites we could trust (with in reason) to containt accurate information about health related matters. But now some people have started shouting "censorship" on the roofs. I don't understand it. If you think the WHO is out to get you, you can just stick to the .com/net/org/ru/etc health sites no? It's not like they want to shutdown non .health websites. And it's the same as .mil no? I don't see anyone complaining about that one. All in all, a great idea, I say.

    Anyhow, just my $0.02.

    "I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick."

    ICANN's rationale for rejecting .kid/.xxx (none / 0) (#59)
    by fluffy grue on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:48:54 PM EST

    On NPR this morning, some ICANN't spokesman was quoted as saying that the reason they didn't make .kid and .xxx is that they didn't want to "label content of sites."

    EXCUSE ME?!?! Isn't that what .museum and .aero will do? Isn't that what .com and .org are supposed to do already?

    ICANN are idiots.
    "Is not a quine" is not a quine.
    I have a master's degree in science!

    [ Hug Your Trikuare ]
    [ Parent ]

    The biggest problem with your suggestions... (none / 0) (#70)
    by spectatorion on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 04:05:44 AM EST

    All your ideas are very valid and might very well make the Internet a better (less annoying) place, but many of your suggestions hinge on one assumption: that current sites will move to a new URL/domain if it is excepted.
    Creating a .mail TLD (point of info, it's TLD: Top Level Domain) would not clear anything up. Things like doctor.com, paris.com, programmer.net, etc. will still be owned by mail.com. They will not just give this up just because .mail exists, especially since they supposedly already have people registered with these email addresses (though i've never come across an email address @seductive.com, @soon.com, @2die4.com, @cheerful.com, or most of the other ones they offer). Instead, they will just buy out more .mail names and give the spammers more aliases. .mov is a good idea, too, I suppose, but I think that ICANN should have offered more general sites for individuals and small businesses. .biz is decent, but most of those will be doubled with .coms. I really liked .web and .dot. The first because it would be much easier for people to have theirname.web than first.last.name, which might as well be .lame in my opinion. The latter I like just because it would be cool to see them have a sense of humor about themselves. Actually, the novelty would probably wear off rather quickly. But it would be a heck of a lot better than .aero, which is so limited, and .museum, which is way too long and also too limited, especially since it has to be an acreddited museum.
    I'm not a big fan of .health, either. It's also too long, and would end up being too limited as well. Plus, the last thing the United Nations needs is another thing to bog it down in bureacracy. I think there should have been another addition equivalent to .org, since that is a very useful site for non-commercial venues. I was also a big fan of .sucks (possibly this could become .sux or .suk) for sites that criticize corporations (or just my.life.sux). Basically, just choosing random sequences of 3 characters would have yielded a more satisfactory set of new TLDs than these non-options.

    Note: I realize that most of this was not a response to your comment, but just my own blabbing. I didn't want to be redundant and post to the main page, too, though. I hope you understand :-)

    [ Parent ]
    .waytoodamnlongtotype (3.50 / 4) (#33)
    by duxup on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 02:50:35 AM EST

    I figured some new TLDs would be nice but I don't know where they got these from.

    .museum seems to defy the logic of .com and just seems plain dumb. .com is so much easier to type than .commercial. .org is easier to type than .organization. So why the heck have a TLD that very likely will be longer than the actual name? What a pain to type.

    To top it off I haven't heard any museums fighting for domain space. So is this necessary or is it just an attempt to make the web seem a bit more intellectual rather than a pile of corporations and hardcore porno?

    New TLDs won't solve the problem (3.50 / 4) (#34)
    by Anonymous 6522 on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 03:53:20 AM EST

    I apologize for all errors, I need sleep.

    I don't think that adding new TLDs will help anything. ".biz" won't help clear out .com, no large buisness will want a .biz TLD, they'll want a .com one even if they have to use something that isn't what you'd expect. I'm sure Id would still have registered idsoftware.com if they had the option of registering id.game or id.biz.

    TLDs were supposed to be used to help organize the net, but now it seems that everything is shoved into .com and .net (even though .net was ment to be used only but ISPs and those who actually ran the wires) The only tlds that I can think of that actually fufilled their purpose are .edu and .gov. This is because there is some regulating group that makes sure that only appropriate groups register under these tlds. I think that this is a good idea.

    The DNS system should be changed. There should be certian tlds that can only be used by sites that satisfy certian criteria (like an .edu has to be an educational institution) otherwise you should be allowed to register whatever name.tld combination you like just as long as it doesn't use a regulated tld. If my name is John Smith I should be able to register john.smith even if the .smith isn't a pre-existing tld.

    Anyone should be able to register to regulate a tld, but any given person/organization should only be manage one at a time. If someone decides to register to manage a new tld and there are already names registered in it, those pre-existing names will be allowed to stay unregulated indefinatly. If the .smith tld is registered by the united blacksmiths guild after John, he will get to keep his domain name, and it can stay compleatly unrelated to blacksmithing, but if Jane Smith wants to register jane.smith she will have to seek approval from the blacksmiths guild.

    Also there should be some resonalbe limit on how many total domain names you can own, to prevent squatting.

    Why on earth registering personal names? (4.00 / 1) (#39)
    by pkej on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 06:55:33 AM EST

    How many John Smiths are there? Quite a few, is it not?

    What is the point of everybody registering "their" domainname?

    Furthermore, the problem with existing .com, .net and .org is the fact that they are viewed as international. In other countries (UK and JP) they split their national domains into three or four main domains, and then companies register under it.

    In other countries (ike Norway where I live) one has to have a registred entity to get a domain name, and only one pr. organization (to be changed in a three months time, as they've been saying for a year).

    For those targetting a global audience (seems like everyone) the .com is a good, and what they want. The national domains don't work well since most who go on the web aim for a larger audience (just see the proliferation of Norwegians making English sites).

    I don't think, though, that a good system can be found. The best I can see is let all registered entities in a country apply for a domain in that country. If you have several offices in several countries, then it's your call which of those you want, one or all. And then it's up to you hove you do it.

    Vanity domains are in many cases silly. And if you have maria.com, why would you move to .name? I'm not entirely sure who should get a vanity domain either. I mean, there are probably quite a few people named something like John Smith, who's to say that one John Smith is more worthy of the domain than another?

    Then, what if one of the John Smiths is a celebrity? Who decides that the celebrity is more worthy than any other?

    Perhaps when visitng john.smith.name we will get a list:

    John Smith the composer of movie music
    John Smith the one who lives in New York but grew up on an airbase in Germany...
    John Smith of Santa Barbara California, filatelist.

    Then we can choose whom we're looking for.

    Hiearchies rarely work.

    [ Parent ]
    enforcement (none / 0) (#46)
    by micco on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 09:30:13 AM EST

    There should be certian tlds that can only be used by sites that satisfy certian criteria (like an .edu has to be an educational institution)

    The problem is that you have to have a lot of infrastructure to enforce the qualification and verification steps. That's not even being done now on the few TLDs that have requirements.

    EDU is supposed to be used only by four-year degree-granting universities, but it's full of trade schools, community colleges, and continuing ed companies. NET is supposed to be for network infrastructure companies, but that's not enforced at all and it's become a spillover for COM.

    I agree that the system needs to be changed and rules need to be enforced, but there's going to be a lot of bureaucratic chatter before we have a system that would actually work.

    [ Parent ]

    jesus (none / 0) (#58)
    by fluffy grue on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:46:33 PM EST

    Jesus is also, apparently, a 4-year accredited university, according to NSI.

    (The link goes to a ministry school SUPPLY store, last I checked. Not even to an actual school!)
    "Is not a quine" is not a quine.
    I have a master's degree in science!

    [ Hug Your Trikuare ]
    [ Parent ]

    End the madness (2.25 / 4) (#36)
    by dreamfish on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 05:54:04 AM EST

    Progressing the TLDs structure will be a no-win situation. Either you leave it to a free-for-all like it currently is with .com, .org, etc. and sort out conflicts through other bodies (the problems with which we are all aware of) or you try to strictly enforce use of the new TLDs and end up with a bureaucratic nightmare (made worse by the need to enforce across different countries). It all seems to point to an eventual collapse of TLDs.

    The only solution I can see is to get rid of TLDs and move over to some sort of Real-Names idea. Interestingly this may happen by itself (to a fashion) if use of other NICs gains significant popularity and ICANN loses control - the more TLDs created the less sense they'll make as a method of identifying the type of site.

    .coop (4.00 / 3) (#38)
    by tallus on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 06:03:44 AM EST

    For those that haven't figured it out yet that really should have been .co-op, but alas ICANN can't seem to spell. What is good , IMHO, about this proposal is that it you will have to actually be a co-op to register a domain within this TLD unlike in .org where there is no requirement to actually be a non-profit to register. If you are curious about the take up as the proposal for this domain points out there are 749,000 co-ops world wide representing 725 million people between them.

    co-op (2.66 / 3) (#40)
    by fantastic-cat on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 07:11:23 AM EST

    I like the idea of this as long as it is enforced.


    [ Parent ]

    co-op (3.00 / 1) (#44)
    by tallus on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 08:50:13 AM EST

    The prosals only talk about supplying to co-ops - most if not all countires have a legal definiton of a co-op, the proposal has this to say about it. "Although the legislative framework for co-operatives varies from country to country, all co-operatives conform to the principles laid out in the International Co-operative Alliance Statement on the Co-operative Identity -http://www.coop.org/ica/info/enprinciples.html."

    There is some interesting stuff in the proposal, aside from a lot of talk about using open-source in the technical section they are say " One of the aims of the .co-op TLD would be to use a proportion of the income derived to support projects tacking digital divide issues in the constituency. " i.e the co-op sector - there are a lot of co-ops in the developing world , 480, 000 in Asia out of 749,000 worldwide.


    [ Parent ]

    What is co-op? (none / 0) (#42)
    by darthaya on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 08:03:59 AM EST

    Excuse me if this sounds dumb, but what exactly is co-op?

    [ Parent ]
    what a co-op is.... (4.00 / 2) (#50)
    by cetan on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 10:09:12 AM EST

    n. A cooperative.

    ===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
    [ Parent ]
    Kuro5hin.coop? (3.50 / 2) (#51)
    by ucblockhead on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 10:25:53 AM EST

    You could argue that Kuro5hin is a co-op as it is produced almost entirely by its users...

    But I wonder why it is .coop and not .co-op?

    This is k5. We're all tools - duxup
    [ Parent ]
    good point (none / 0) (#60)
    by cetan on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 12:58:49 PM EST

    I'm not sure...I mean, they did add .museum which is equally silly. maybe they are all afraid of the "-"

    ===== cetan www.cetan.com =====
    [ Parent ]
    What is a co-op? (4.00 / 2) (#52)
    by tallus on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 10:32:15 AM EST

    Most (all?) countries have a legal definition of a co-op but the Seven Co-operative Principles form the most useful definition.

    [ Parent ]
    bigendian domains (2.66 / 3) (#41)
    by acestus on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 07:22:52 AM EST

    I always thought that domains names should be bidendian. That is, instead of www.kuro5hin.org, we could have org.kuro5hin.www.

    First of all, the heirarchy is just... better, IMCO. With a well-selected group of TLDs and 2LDs (!), you could easily find plenty of things that otherwise find obscure namespace. Not only that, but it would enable what I consider the greatest thing since sliced bread: tab-completion.

    k5$ lynx http://info.ref.encyclp^I

    This is not an exit.
    jaNET did that (none / 0) (#45)
    by excession on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 09:05:15 AM EST

    when jaNET (Joint Academic Network) - the UK universities connectivity provider - put the UK 'net together, they originally went with <blah>@uk.ac.${UNIVERSITY} for email addresses. This was incompatible with the first DNS RFC, so it got changed to the little endian system we have now

    [ Parent ]
    It would probably make more sense, but... (1.00 / 1) (#72)
    by DeepDarkSky on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 11:51:53 AM EST

    it may confuse people when you get to the / at the end of the FQDN, and you start the hierarchical paths. I think maybe they did it that way just to keep people for confusing parts of the FQDN from the paths. Meaning, they won't want people to go - what was it again? http://www.kuro5hin/org.topic/mlp....what? This way, people have to make a consious effor to know that the first part is the FQDN for a host, the latter, the path. Otherwise, why not just say... http://org/kuro5hin/www/topic or something like that? The hosts needed to be very distinct and I think that's why it was done that way, not that I think it had to be that way. Go ask one of those guys who thought this up - wasn't it Tim Berners-Lee or Vinton Cerf or one of those guys?

    [ Parent ]
    .coop (2.66 / 3) (#43)
    by Moebius on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 08:32:00 AM EST

    No, there's another one - harvard.coop

    more .coop humor (4.00 / 2) (#49)
    by coug_ on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 09:45:30 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    Better yet... (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by TrentC on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 10:41:50 AM EST


    Jay (=

    [ Parent ]
    flownthe.coop (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by reverend_greg on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 10:42:23 AM EST


    [ Parent ]
    the real reason (3.33 / 3) (#47)
    by micco on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 09:37:48 AM EST

    I think it's clear that ICANN intentionally chose unpopular TLDs so there would be an opportunity to test the expansion under sane conditions. If they'd opened BIZ, XXX, or PORN, there would have been a deluge of registrations on opening day and the system would have collapsed under the volume whether or not it was set up to transition well. As it is, there are only about three people in the world who care about registering a COOP, so we can have a nice low-speed test of this first expansion.

    OTOH, maybe ICANN is dumb as a box of hammers. Individually, most of the unelected members are self-important blowhards and I see no reason to believe their collective intelligence is any greater than the sum of the parts (0+0+0...)

    OTGH, maybe both.

    check that (3.00 / 2) (#48)
    by micco on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 09:40:35 AM EST


    If they'd opened BIZ

    Check that. Obviously they opened BIZ. I meant to refer to WEB. I think the point still stands...

    [ Parent ]

    Haven't these already been decided? (3.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Minuit on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 11:00:53 AM EST

    Didn't George Carlin announce the Seven New TLDs back in 1978?

    If you were my .sig, you would be home by now.

    .aero (2.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Mantrid on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 01:27:57 PM EST

    .Aero might actually be decent enough, there is far more to aerospace than boeing, I know that there is actually an 'aeronet', which maybe what they're sort of trying to replace. Does it need it's own? Well maybe not, but you could make somewhat of an argument for it.





    heehee (4.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Rand Race on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 04:40:36 PM EST


    I guess it does have some uses ;)

    "Question with boldness even the existence of God; because if there be one, He must approve the homage of Reason rather than that of blindfolded Fear." - Thomas Jefferson
    [ Parent ]

    jeez (4.00 / 2) (#65)
    by xavii on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 05:51:52 PM EST

    i can't think of anything that's going to have as large as an impact as .com, .org and .net have had from that list.

    basically these tld's are going to bring in more money for the registrars when people register:


    and now add:

    mybusiness.pro, mybusiness.museum, mybusiness.aero, mybusiness.coop, mybusiness.name


    xavii aka bob
    xavii aka bob
    What was ICANN thinking? (2.00 / 1) (#67)
    by sl4ck0ff on Fri Nov 17, 2000 at 07:15:17 PM EST

    I, for the most part, agree with rusty's rant on ICANN's choice for new TLDs. I can't understand how those names could be ever be thought of, let alone approved. Is it possible that this is some stupid joke? I can't possibly understand the thinking behind ".coop".
    /me has returned to slacking
    .coop (2.50 / 2) (#76)
    by Arkady on Sat Nov 18, 2000 at 05:01:10 PM EST

    Check out some of the comments below on that. There are almost 750,000 cooperatives (housing, business, social/infrastructural) around the world. Not surprisingly, they tend to be found in "developing" countries, so it's not really surprising that you're either not familiar with or not interested in them.

    Since I've been living and working in coops for 10 years, naturally I'm really in favor of this one. We're looking forward to moving our consulting company from cliq.com to cliq.coop in a big way. ;-)

    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 ]
    Possible uses for .aero (none / 0) (#79)
    by jdfox on Sun Nov 19, 2000 at 06:33:26 AM EST

    There are new ISP services about to launch, based from aircraft:
    ...and even some being talked about based from satellites and slow-moving airships circling in a fixed path. If you've got a server in international airspace, what's it's domain? .com or .ISO-code would be OK, but suppose it's not commercial, and not affiliated with any one country's content? Perhaps that's what the registrars had in mind.

    Well. (2.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Dolgan on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 11:40:28 AM EST

    There's supposed to be lots of uses. :)

    [ Parent ]
    great - so we get .museum but not .music (none / 0) (#80)
    by yem on Mon Nov 20, 2000 at 03:36:26 AM EST

    Clearly they've cocked it up. And what's with the $2000 fee and
    subscription required for .biz??

    Even making the top categories from yahoo into TLDs would have
    been better than the silly scheme they have accepted.

    ICANN screws the pooch on new TLD's | 83 comments (83 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:


    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!