5 ms·

ICANN Pushes Ahead With New TLDs

14 points by dan_manges 15y ago

obituary_latte 15y ago
Well at least now I have a good reason to let all of my "land grab" .com and .net domains expire. Also, they are really dumb.
freejack 15y ago
I'm super pleased to see this move ahead. Competition has been absent from this segment of the market for far too long. I'm really looking forward to seeing some flowers bloom.
- marshray 15y ago
  You realize that the gTLDs they're selling are not going to work reliably? Single label names always resolve first on the local domain. Except when they don't. This isn't currently a problem because no admin in their right mind would name their servers "com", "org", or "net". It's a tacit convention that's now being broken. I can think of a few security problems this creates, lord knows how many we haven't thought of yet. ICANN is selling names in a namespace they don't control. As Dan Geer puts it, "ICANN has devolved into nothing but a protection racket." http://geer.tinho.net/ieee/ieee.sp.geer.1107b.pdf http://geer.tinho.net/ieee/ieee.sp.geer.1107b.pdf
  - simcop2387 15y ago
    This is all because of the fact that most people drop the trailing dot off of FQDNs that avoids this problem. Have a look at http://www.dns-sd.org/TrailingDotsInDomainNames.html http://www.dns-sd.org/TrailingDotsInDomainNames.html
    - marshray 15y ago
      Yes, this is a good example of ICANN's brokenness. http://www.icann.org./ http://www.icann.org./ returns a blank page. No one uses the trailing dot except for very DNS-specific admin stuff.
      - simcop2387 15y ago
        Pretty much. It was a problem that was foreseen in the beginning and was dealt with. And then everyone just started ignoring it.
  - freejack 15y ago
    And on that basis, it makes sense to create a monopoly and concentrate very real control over vast tracts of the namespace with unregulated private corporations? Sounds like a great plan. I'm always amazed at the large numbers of people that criticize ICANN's work and the very small number that contribute to it.
    - marshray 15y ago
      Oh look, the current system isn't ideal either. vast tracts of the namespace The thing about (even) the current TLD system is that there is a variety of namespaces and each one by itself is effectively unlimited. Sure, everybody wants to have a .com but when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter except for brand name purposes. People who need to publish and read information can use something else (that most "rogue" of websites Wikileaks proved this). On the other hand, moving all the expensive commercial brand stuff to the top level (as ICANN aims to do) really does create a single tract of namespace under monopoly control.
      - freejack 15y ago
        yes, and my point unless the market allows for competition to .com, then we've effectively given control of the namespace to one or two organizations - namely Verisign and ICANN. I don't understand your point about competition creating a monopoly unless you are referring to ICANN"s "powers". It is an artifact of the community. Show up and participate in the monopoly if you are concerned about how it wields its influence and directs its policy.
joshuahedlund 15y ago
I don't get why articles keep referring to "22" existing TLDs when there's a huge existing list[1]. Sure a lot of those are restricted, but we've seen a large number of them (.fm .me etc) move beyond their original country-specific intention and be used similar to the ones in the "generic TLD" list. As for the new ones, I'm more curious than anything, as there are two huge unknowns here. First, people/companies have to buy the domains. Second, the public at large has to accept them. We've already seen TLDs both generally catch on and generally fail (anyone remember the dot-mobi craze?). I'm not convinced that companies are going to have to spend lots of money to squat "mycompany.apple" or "mycompany.hotels" or whatever just to "protect their brand." I mean, companies don't generally worry (AFAIK) about other people's subdomains now, and if new TLDs catch on people may start to view the 'middle' name in the same way. Or maybe not. It's just a big unknown right now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_doma...

14 points by dan_manges 15y ago

Well at least now I have a good reason to let all of my "land grab" .com and .net domains expire. Also, they are really dumb.

freejack 15y ago

I'm super pleased to see this move ahead. Competition has been absent from this segment of the market for far too long. I'm really looking forward to seeing some flowers bloom.

marshray 15y ago
You realize that the gTLDs they're selling are not going to work reliably? Single label names always resolve first on the local domain. Except when they don't. This isn't currently a problem because no admin in their right mind would name their servers "com", "org", or "net". It's a tacit convention that's now being broken. I can think of a few security problems this creates, lord knows how many we haven't thought of yet. ICANN is selling names in a namespace they don't control. As Dan Geer puts it, "ICANN has devolved into nothing but a protection racket." http://geer.tinho.net/ieee/ieee.sp.geer.1107b.pdf http://geer.tinho.net/ieee/ieee.sp.geer.1107b.pdf
- simcop2387 15y ago
  This is all because of the fact that most people drop the trailing dot off of FQDNs that avoids this problem. Have a look at http://www.dns-sd.org/TrailingDotsInDomainNames.html http://www.dns-sd.org/TrailingDotsInDomainNames.html
  - marshray 15y ago
    Yes, this is a good example of ICANN's brokenness. http://www.icann.org./ http://www.icann.org./ returns a blank page. No one uses the trailing dot except for very DNS-specific admin stuff.
    - simcop2387 15y ago
      Pretty much. It was a problem that was foreseen in the beginning and was dealt with. And then everyone just started ignoring it.
- freejack 15y ago
  And on that basis, it makes sense to create a monopoly and concentrate very real control over vast tracts of the namespace with unregulated private corporations? Sounds like a great plan. I'm always amazed at the large numbers of people that criticize ICANN's work and the very small number that contribute to it.
  - marshray 15y ago
    Oh look, the current system isn't ideal either. vast tracts of the namespace The thing about (even) the current TLD system is that there is a variety of namespaces and each one by itself is effectively unlimited. Sure, everybody wants to have a .com but when it comes down to it, it really doesn't matter except for brand name purposes. People who need to publish and read information can use something else (that most "rogue" of websites Wikileaks proved this). On the other hand, moving all the expensive commercial brand stuff to the top level (as ICANN aims to do) really does create a single tract of namespace under monopoly control.
    - freejack 15y ago
      yes, and my point unless the market allows for competition to .com, then we've effectively given control of the namespace to one or two organizations - namely Verisign and ICANN. I don't understand your point about competition creating a monopoly unless you are referring to ICANN"s "powers". It is an artifact of the community. Show up and participate in the monopoly if you are concerned about how it wields its influence and directs its policy.

joshuahedlund 15y ago

I don't get why articles keep referring to "22" existing TLDs when there's a huge existing list[1]. Sure a lot of those are restricted, but we've seen a large number of them (.fm .me etc) move beyond their original country-specific intention and be used similar to the ones in the "generic TLD" list. As for the new ones, I'm more curious than anything, as there are two huge unknowns here. First, people/companies have to buy the domains. Second, the public at large has to accept them. We've already seen TLDs both generally catch on and generally fail (anyone remember the dot-mobi craze?). I'm not convinced that companies are going to have to spend lots of money to squat "mycompany.apple" or "mycompany.hotels" or whatever just to "protect their brand." I mean, companies don't generally worry (AFAIK) about other people's subdomains now, and if new TLDs catch on people may start to view the 'middle' name in the same way. Or maybe not. It's just a big unknown right now. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_doma...