7 ms·

.pics .pictures .photo .photos .photography ICANN jumped the freaking shark and made an irrevocable mess of internet naming.

by nfoz 7y ago

stochastic_monk 7y ago
.photo and .photos sounds like a domain spoofer’s dream.
- icebraining 7y ago
  Not much different than .com and .co, which already existed before the new TLDs.
  - oarsinsync 7y ago
    The major difference is that ICANN got paid a large sum for both .photo and .photos, while .com is a legacy gTLD and .co is a ccTLD.
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      I would have added .img, .res, .txt, .src, .var, .dev, .etc, .bin, .lib, .bak, .dir, .key, and (of course) .log, as gTLDs without charging for them. But I guess that's why I don't work for ICANN.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
Avamander 7y ago
I don't see why impose any restrictions aside from the country TLDs. We have enough letters, we could make TLDs affordable.
- dean177 7y ago
  phish.ing phis.hing phishi.ng etc
  - ShorsHammer 7y ago
    amusingly two of those are valid domains
- dmix 7y ago
  > we could make TLDs affordable. As long as we throw out the whole 'memorable' part. Which has both branding and security implications. We need to either commit to a limited set or unlimited set. Being stuck in between in the worst of both worlds. If it's unlimited we can treat domains more like phone numbers and rely on 'contact book' style systems for personal reference instead of memory. Which would help solve both branding/security issues. You could even diff the URLs against your URL "contact books" (I'm trying not to say bookmarks), to warn against possible phishing too.
  - nfoz 7y ago
    > If it's unlimited we can treat domains more like phone numbers and rely on 'contact book' style systems for personal reference instead of memory. So then we can throw out the DNS and just use IP addresses or some IPFS-esque scheme.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    - logfromblammo 7y ago
      Or use a federated contact book, such that a site operator could openly publish a memorable name, and those names could be propagated to others and given aliases. ...so then the nodes operated by the FAANGs would be authoritative just by virtue of popularity. Dangit. I guess we're back to HOSTS files.
  - Avamander 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

.pics .pictures .photo .photos .photography ICANN jumped the freaking shark and made an irrevocable mess of internet naming.

by nfoz 7y ago

.pics .pictures .photo .photos .photography ICANN jumped the freaking shark and made an irrevocable mess of internet naming.

stochastic_monk 7y ago

.photo and .photos sounds like a domain spoofer’s dream.

icebraining 7y ago
Not much different than .com and .co, which already existed before the new TLDs.
- oarsinsync 7y ago
  The major difference is that ICANN got paid a large sum for both .photo and .photos, while .com is a legacy gTLD and .co is a ccTLD.
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    I would have added .img, .res, .txt, .src, .var, .dev, .etc, .bin, .lib, .bak, .dir, .key, and (of course) .log, as gTLDs without charging for them. But I guess that's why I don't work for ICANN.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]

Avamander 7y ago

I don't see why impose any restrictions aside from the country TLDs. We have enough letters, we could make TLDs affordable.

dean177 7y ago
phish.ing phis.hing phishi.ng etc
- ShorsHammer 7y ago
  amusingly two of those are valid domains
dmix 7y ago
> we could make TLDs affordable. As long as we throw out the whole 'memorable' part. Which has both branding and security implications. We need to either commit to a limited set or unlimited set. Being stuck in between in the worst of both worlds. If it's unlimited we can treat domains more like phone numbers and rely on 'contact book' style systems for personal reference instead of memory. Which would help solve both branding/security issues. You could even diff the URLs against your URL "contact books" (I'm trying not to say bookmarks), to warn against possible phishing too.
- nfoz 7y ago
  > If it's unlimited we can treat domains more like phone numbers and rely on 'contact book' style systems for personal reference instead of memory. So then we can throw out the DNS and just use IP addresses or some IPFS-esque scheme.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - logfromblammo 7y ago
    Or use a federated contact book, such that a site operator could openly publish a memorable name, and those names could be propagated to others and given aliases. ...so then the nodes operated by the FAANGs would be authoritative just by virtue of popularity. Dangit. I guess we're back to HOSTS files.
- Avamander 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]