8 ms·

This is not surprising but I fail to see the downside. The internet is complex already. The new top level domains won't add much to that. I think that there

This is not surprising but I fail to see the downside. The internet is complex already. The new top level domains won't add much to that. I think that there was no end-user demand whatsoever for more so-called DNS extensions, [or] global generic top-level domains (gTLDs)," he said. I run a lot of websites and it was a pain to find good domain names in the last 15 years. With all the new TLDs that problem is completely gone. There will be a time when the multitude of TLDs won't bother anyone. Limiting TLDs doesn't add security. Educating people about the dangers of the internet does.

xgbi 11y ago
Yeah a bit of pain, but at least you prevent some confusions, like "is it fr.microsoft or microsoft.software?" What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service? What if you're a bank and somebody gets a TLD like "yourbank.bank" with valid SSL and starts fishing people from yourbank.com?
- icebraining 11y ago
  What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service? What happens now? It's not like there's a single domain already - there are dozens, if not hundreds of TLDs. The realistic answer is: the new TLDs don't matter, even just with .com, it's easy to get a similar enough domain that many people will fall for.
  - h1762581 11y ago
    I remember the good old steamcornmutiny.
jeremyjh 11y ago
It is a shakedown. Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD. Doesn't it mean anything that registrars were the only people asking for this?
- icebraining 11y ago
  Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD. Either that, or they'll finally realize it's futile and stop that nonsense.
  - estefan 11y ago
    Exactly. If I run a business at `10 High Street` I don't set up shop in every town and city on every road called `High Street`. If people go to number 10 in their town, they'll search again if they can't find my shop if that's what they're looking for.
    - nvk 11y ago
      The biggest problem is phishing, bad actors send emails from the slightly off TLD.
      - coldpie 11y ago
        Our IT guy has actually just blackholed all mail from any of the new TLDs. I don't know exactly what he did, but I suspect it's just a whitelist containing "TLDs from before the Great TLD Expansion." I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate website from one of the new TLDs, and to be honest I'm still suspicious of most country code TLDs. The new TLDs are a massive problem disguised as a solution in search of a problem.
        calinet6 11y ago
        They change almost nothing. We had many TLDs before, we have many TLDs now. Any system not designed to be resilient to many TLDs and multiple ways of reaching an IP is the real problem.
        coldpie 11y ago
        There's some spectrum of legitimacy, perhaps unfair. When I see ".com" I know it's a website. When I see ".co" I think I'm being phished. When I see ".software" I'm confused. When I see ".ninja" I wonder what the heck is going on. Who benefits?
ownagefool 11y ago
You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000. I'm of the view if you're sitting on names that you're keeping around exclusively because you think they could net you a windfall in the future then you're a bit of an internet twat.
- avar 11y ago
  You could say the same about holding on to property you're not using, but people resist the obvious solution: higher property tax, or in the case of domains higher yearly fees.
- calinet6 11y ago
  The high price was an excellent sign that they were overly scarce (for an otherwise limitless resource), and that more were needed. I think the new gTLDs are great. Most of them aren't exorbitantly expensive, and generally speaking they free you up to have an address on the big wild internet that makes way more sense than the contrived naming conventions we resorted to using in the past (eg: get[???].com, [???]app.com, both of which I can think of prime, famous examples in real world use). Is [???].app really better? Yeah, probably.
  - pavel_lishin 11y ago
    Except those will get eaten up rapidly as well. Is [???].horse better than get[???].com?
- bhartzer 11y ago
  >> You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I think you're confused, and probably mean "give up the domains" they're not using. Not "give up the TLDs". This is not a viable option, though. Even though someone may think they're not using the domain, there's a good chance they could be using it (like using it for email even though the a record doesn't resolve to anything) or they could be using it as an investment. Asking someone to give up a domain that "they're not using" is like asking someone to give up the vacant lot they're not using. It's real estate.

xgbi 11y ago

Yeah a bit of pain, but at least you prevent some confusions, like "is it fr.microsoft or microsoft.software?" What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service? What if you're a bank and somebody gets a TLD like "yourbank.bank" with valid SSL and starts fishing people from yourbank.com?

icebraining 11y ago
What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service? What happens now? It's not like there's a single domain already - there are dozens, if not hundreds of TLDs. The realistic answer is: the new TLDs don't matter, even just with .com, it's easy to get a similar enough domain that many people will fall for.
- h1762581 11y ago
  I remember the good old steamcornmutiny.

jeremyjh 11y ago

It is a shakedown. Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD. Doesn't it mean anything that registrars were the only people asking for this?

icebraining 11y ago
Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD. Either that, or they'll finally realize it's futile and stop that nonsense.
- estefan 11y ago
  Exactly. If I run a business at `10 High Street` I don't set up shop in every town and city on every road called `High Street`. If people go to number 10 in their town, they'll search again if they can't find my shop if that's what they're looking for.
  - nvk 11y ago
    The biggest problem is phishing, bad actors send emails from the slightly off TLD.
    - coldpie 11y ago
      Our IT guy has actually just blackholed all mail from any of the new TLDs. I don't know exactly what he did, but I suspect it's just a whitelist containing "TLDs from before the Great TLD Expansion." I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate website from one of the new TLDs, and to be honest I'm still suspicious of most country code TLDs. The new TLDs are a massive problem disguised as a solution in search of a problem.
      - calinet6 11y ago
        They change almost nothing. We had many TLDs before, we have many TLDs now. Any system not designed to be resilient to many TLDs and multiple ways of reaching an IP is the real problem.
        coldpie 11y ago
        There's some spectrum of legitimacy, perhaps unfair. When I see ".com" I know it's a website. When I see ".co" I think I'm being phished. When I see ".software" I'm confused. When I see ".ninja" I wonder what the heck is going on. Who benefits?

ownagefool 11y ago

You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000. I'm of the view if you're sitting on names that you're keeping around exclusively because you think they could net you a windfall in the future then you're a bit of an internet twat.

avar 11y ago
You could say the same about holding on to property you're not using, but people resist the obvious solution: higher property tax, or in the case of domains higher yearly fees.
calinet6 11y ago
The high price was an excellent sign that they were overly scarce (for an otherwise limitless resource), and that more were needed. I think the new gTLDs are great. Most of them aren't exorbitantly expensive, and generally speaking they free you up to have an address on the big wild internet that makes way more sense than the contrived naming conventions we resorted to using in the past (eg: get[???].com, [???]app.com, both of which I can think of prime, famous examples in real world use). Is [???].app really better? Yeah, probably.
- pavel_lishin 11y ago
  Except those will get eaten up rapidly as well. Is [???].horse better than get[???].com?
bhartzer 11y ago
>> You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using. I think you're confused, and probably mean "give up the domains" they're not using. Not "give up the TLDs". This is not a viable option, though. Even though someone may think they're not using the domain, there's a good chance they could be using it (like using it for email even though the a record doesn't resolve to anything) or they could be using it as an investment. Asking someone to give up a domain that "they're not using" is like asking someone to give up the vacant lot they're not using. It's real estate.