7 ms·

I didn't know that companies and institutions could create TLDs with their name, fully dedicated to them. At this point, why not just accept any string of char

I didn't know that companies and institutions could create TLDs with their name, fully dedicated to them. At this point, why not just accept any string of characters up to a certain lenght as a TLD? We've already lost the advantages of having fewer TLDs, no one can remember what is and isn't a TLD, so we have to assume that anything could be a TLD. I don't realy agree with the proliferation of so many TLDs, but the damage is already done and the logical step forward is to let anytjing be a TLD.

tpetry 6y ago
The problem with your concept is determing who is responsible for „.hackernews“
cdmckay 6y ago
They don’t do that because they can charge companies $185,000 to become a custom TLD and $6,250 a quarter after that. https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24460/how-can-i-buy-my-own-personalized-top-level-domain-tld#24474 https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24460/how-can...
- NetOpWibby 6y ago
  I’ve been looking for a similar reference to this all week, thanks.
tialaramex 6y ago
> we have to assume that anything could be a TLD Yes. This has been the correct way to handle it for at least a couple of decades and perhaps arguably more. RFC 2606 reserves a handful of TLDs (such as .example and .invalid) and it would be sane to treat these specially (e.g. this-is.invalid just isn't a valid DNS name) but otherwise the most you could say for sure about any TLD is that you don't know whether it exists. There's a lot of bad legacy code out there which will do things like reject email addresses with a TLD longer than three characters, don't do that even if you think .horse was a bad idea. > At this point, why not just accept any string of characters up to a certain lenght as a TLD? With the exceptions in RFC 2606 and the practical constraint that some TLDs are "poisoned" by decades of misuse (e.g. .corp) this is the situation today. However the next question is - who shall operate the registry for each of these TLDs? So that's what the ICANN process is for. It's not a problem for .some-ludicrous-vanity-domain-for-a-corporation as on the one hand, nobody else wanted those names (often even the corporation itself never uses them, it's just burning money) - but it gets trickier for .horse where understandably the people who own a horse's name in .horse don't want to hear about how the company operating it went bankrupt and now they need to pay somebody else or their site stops working.
- labawi 6y ago
  > the practical constraint that some TLDs are "poisoned" by decades of misuse (e.g. .corp) I would call it poisoned by decades of "misuse". From my POV, squatters rights should apply and ICANN has no business delegating widely used TLDs, even if they are not formally registered (in which case they would be expected to pay $$$$-$$$$$$ / y). TLDs like .onion, .corp, .lan, and other widely used TLDs (say .bit, .dn42, ...) should not be delegated by ICANN, unless it is to the undisputable current users of the TLD. There is no way a hobby project could pay $$$$$$ for registration, and if it does become successful, while not using the root nameserver services, I don't see why it should pay for the privilege.
  - tialaramex 6y ago
    .onion was permanently reserved for Tor (which I imagine is what you'd prefer) in RFC 7686. It makes no sense to do this for say .corp because in fact the existing "squatter" users just arbitrarily assign whatever names they want, so unlike facebookcorewwwi.onion there is no agreed global meaning of headquarters.corp or hplaserjet.corp - the namespace is just poisoned.
    - labawi 6y ago
      On the contrary, .corp is a widespread totally established internal use domain. Just like .dev was. No, it is not globally resolvable, but it is in the same namespace (no way to add a different namespace while retaining compatibility), is widely used and I don't see why a dozen or so widely used TLDs need to be auctioned off to Donuts co. or whoever. It's not like we have a shortage of words or even operational gTLDs these days. I'm not suggesting any TLD with 3 users should be off-limits (though I don't agree with gTLDs altogether) just the really widely established ones. If a project/group/whatever successfully squats a TLD and gets widely established, then it should be protected as well. If nothing else, then by squatting itself. We do not have another namespace for alternative resolution strategies, so ICANN should not simply rent away all names. Last time I heard, ICANN was corrupt. As far as I am concerned, they have no more right to assign .corp or whatever, than I have a right to reassign and use it for other purposes on my systems. I am not paying 185000$ for gTLD, nor renting a long domain to use for internal purposes, or with my friends.
usrusr 6y ago
Because all the abuse and conflict we see/saw within conventional TLDs surely becomes easier to handle within a single, centrally administered namespace?

tpetry 6y ago

The problem with your concept is determing who is responsible for „.hackernews“

cdmckay 6y ago

They don’t do that because they can charge companies $185,000 to become a custom TLD and $6,250 a quarter after that. https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24460/how-can-i-buy-my-own-personalized-top-level-domain-tld#24474 https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24460/how-can...

NetOpWibby 6y ago
I’ve been looking for a similar reference to this all week, thanks.

tialaramex 6y ago

> we have to assume that anything could be a TLD Yes. This has been the correct way to handle it for at least a couple of decades and perhaps arguably more. RFC 2606 reserves a handful of TLDs (such as .example and .invalid) and it would be sane to treat these specially (e.g. this-is.invalid just isn't a valid DNS name) but otherwise the most you could say for sure about any TLD is that you don't know whether it exists. There's a lot of bad legacy code out there which will do things like reject email addresses with a TLD longer than three characters, don't do that even if you think .horse was a bad idea. > At this point, why not just accept any string of characters up to a certain lenght as a TLD? With the exceptions in RFC 2606 and the practical constraint that some TLDs are "poisoned" by decades of misuse (e.g. .corp) this is the situation today. However the next question is - who shall operate the registry for each of these TLDs? So that's what the ICANN process is for. It's not a problem for .some-ludicrous-vanity-domain-for-a-corporation as on the one hand, nobody else wanted those names (often even the corporation itself never uses them, it's just burning money) - but it gets trickier for .horse where understandably the people who own a horse's name in .horse don't want to hear about how the company operating it went bankrupt and now they need to pay somebody else or their site stops working.

labawi 6y ago
> the practical constraint that some TLDs are "poisoned" by decades of misuse (e.g. .corp) I would call it poisoned by decades of "misuse". From my POV, squatters rights should apply and ICANN has no business delegating widely used TLDs, even if they are not formally registered (in which case they would be expected to pay $$$$-$$$$$$ / y). TLDs like .onion, .corp, .lan, and other widely used TLDs (say .bit, .dn42, ...) should not be delegated by ICANN, unless it is to the undisputable current users of the TLD. There is no way a hobby project could pay $$$$$$ for registration, and if it does become successful, while not using the root nameserver services, I don't see why it should pay for the privilege.
- tialaramex 6y ago
  .onion was permanently reserved for Tor (which I imagine is what you'd prefer) in RFC 7686. It makes no sense to do this for say .corp because in fact the existing "squatter" users just arbitrarily assign whatever names they want, so unlike facebookcorewwwi.onion there is no agreed global meaning of headquarters.corp or hplaserjet.corp - the namespace is just poisoned.
  - labawi 6y ago
    On the contrary, .corp is a widespread totally established internal use domain. Just like .dev was. No, it is not globally resolvable, but it is in the same namespace (no way to add a different namespace while retaining compatibility), is widely used and I don't see why a dozen or so widely used TLDs need to be auctioned off to Donuts co. or whoever. It's not like we have a shortage of words or even operational gTLDs these days. I'm not suggesting any TLD with 3 users should be off-limits (though I don't agree with gTLDs altogether) just the really widely established ones. If a project/group/whatever successfully squats a TLD and gets widely established, then it should be protected as well. If nothing else, then by squatting itself. We do not have another namespace for alternative resolution strategies, so ICANN should not simply rent away all names. Last time I heard, ICANN was corrupt. As far as I am concerned, they have no more right to assign .corp or whatever, than I have a right to reassign and use it for other purposes on my systems. I am not paying 185000$ for gTLD, nor renting a long domain to use for internal purposes, or with my friends.

usrusr 6y ago

Because all the abuse and conflict we see/saw within conventional TLDs surely becomes easier to handle within a single, centrally administered namespace?