3 ms·

>is not how the internet was supposed to be Don't really see the issue. Is having just few TLDs (com/net/org) somehow better? Is there a significant difference

>is not how the internet was supposed to be Don't really see the issue. Is having just few TLDs (com/net/org) somehow better? Is there a significant difference in having a domain on those and having an entire TLD? Other than the later being much more expensive that is.

zokier 4y ago
Having some hierarchy or structure to DNS would be better. But that ship sailed around 1996 when Postel explicitly rejected the idea of closing .COM So, the argument goes, just close the COM (and NET and ORG) domain to new registrations and tell all those making registration requests "were sorry, COM was a mistake, you now have to register under your country code". After all, by the growth argument, in a couple of years the number of companies in COM will be a small percentage of the total population. I don't think this will work. There would certainly be a lot of complaints (and probably legal actions) suggesting that some unfair practices were being followed and that the new requesters were being arbitrarily disadvantaged. I think it would be hard to argue that over 200,000 registrations following a procedure in place over 5 years was a small mistake. Leaving .COM to be the everything TLD pretty solidly settled the non-existence of hierarchy in the public space, which I see directly paving way for these "new" gtlds.
- throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
  that would've been a fucking nightmare
drusepth 4y ago
>Don't really see the issue. Is having just few TLDs (com/net/org) somehow better? One way it (may) arguably be better is that there are fewer avenues for impersonation or abuse. Ten years ago, bestbuy (or, insert your own small brand here) would buy bestbuy.com, bestbuy.net, bestbuy.org, bastbuy.com, etc to make sure malicious actors couldn't commit any tomfoolery against their customers, devalue their brand, etc. Adding more gTLDs, as we see with examples elsewhere on this thread, means some companies now feel the need to spend hundreds of thousands more buying up gTLDs lest someone sets up cars.bestbuy, shoes.bestbuy, a malicious login.bestbuy, etc. In a perfect world without any abuse, I think more gTLDs would be desirable. As a small business owner who has felt pressured to buy up several similar-sounding domains after others caused mischief with them... I'm less sure.

zokier 4y ago

Having some hierarchy or structure to DNS would be better. But that ship sailed around 1996 when Postel explicitly rejected the idea of closing .COM So, the argument goes, just close the COM (and NET and ORG) domain to new registrations and tell all those making registration requests "were sorry, COM was a mistake, you now have to register under your country code". After all, by the growth argument, in a couple of years the number of companies in COM will be a small percentage of the total population. I don't think this will work. There would certainly be a lot of complaints (and probably legal actions) suggesting that some unfair practices were being followed and that the new requesters were being arbitrarily disadvantaged. I think it would be hard to argue that over 200,000 registrations following a procedure in place over 5 years was a small mistake. Leaving .COM to be the everything TLD pretty solidly settled the non-existence of hierarchy in the public space, which I see directly paving way for these "new" gtlds.

throwaway0x7E6 4y ago
that would've been a fucking nightmare

drusepth 4y ago

>Don't really see the issue. Is having just few TLDs (com/net/org) somehow better? One way it (may) arguably be better is that there are fewer avenues for impersonation or abuse. Ten years ago, bestbuy (or, insert your own small brand here) would buy bestbuy.com, bestbuy.net, bestbuy.org, bastbuy.com, etc to make sure malicious actors couldn't commit any tomfoolery against their customers, devalue their brand, etc. Adding more gTLDs, as we see with examples elsewhere on this thread, means some companies now feel the need to spend hundreds of thousands more buying up gTLDs lest someone sets up cars.bestbuy, shoes.bestbuy, a malicious login.bestbuy, etc. In a perfect world without any abuse, I think more gTLDs would be desirable. As a small business owner who has felt pressured to buy up several similar-sounding domains after others caused mischief with them... I'm less sure.