4 ms·

So basically, we are creating a two-tier internet where people with money can pay a lot for nice names and others will be considered cheap for having a .com at

So basically, we are creating a two-tier internet where people with money can pay a lot for nice names and others will be considered cheap for having a .com at the end? Way to go democratic internet.... I wonder if they actually stopped long enough to consider the actual pros and cons on this.

AndrewDucker 14y ago
The people that own most of these tlds will then sell domains on to ordinary people. So give it time and you, too, can have a .fail domain.
- twelvechairs 14y ago
  Possibly. But say I'm starting a video-sharing website - I'm at a big competitive disadvantage when my customers need to type and remember an extra domain-name level compared to my competitors (who own '.video', '.movie', '.youtube', etc. while i might own '.bobsvideo.fail').
  - AndrewDucker 14y ago
    Except that, as discussed above, "youtube" by itself is not a valid host name. It would have to be "mysite.youtube" Still easier than you having "mysite.bobsvideo.fail" I agree, but frankly most people don't even find sites via the domain name. They'll google "Bobs Video" and see what comes up.
    - zokier 14y ago
      why wouldn't "youtube" be valid hostname?
      - AndrewDucker 14y ago
        Same reason that "com" and "net" aren't. Root nodes aren't, from my understanding, valid names for machines. Edit: Seems I'm wrong. See discussion downthread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105707 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105707
    - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
      Wrong. "youtube." (or "youtube") IS a valid host name. "to." is an example, it was a URL shortening service, but it's down now.
jimktrains2 14y ago
I've personally always thought that tlds was dumb. I never understood why things needed to be partitioned like that. Is there any technical reason to have them? Also, it's very bothersome that domains are backwards. It's always irked me. That being said, the amount of money required for a gTLD is absurd.
jerf 14y ago
Pros: The registry makes a lot of money on an ongoing basis. Cons: Internet nerds whine a lot. It was unfortunately a no-brainer for them.
goblin89 14y ago
Seems like exposing readable unique resource identifiers inevitably brings some sort of confusion and/or unjustness. The only fair alternative would be no visible URIs (UUIDs or plain IPs could be used) and better search. There still is the ordering of results and SEO issues, but it's up to user—change your query or search engine if you aren't satisfied. The security issue (phishing) would require a bit more work to sort out, but I'm sure that's doable. Domain names could still be used, but strictly for basic infrastructure-related things, like search engine directory.

AndrewDucker 14y ago

The people that own most of these tlds will then sell domains on to ordinary people. So give it time and you, too, can have a .fail domain.

twelvechairs 14y ago
Possibly. But say I'm starting a video-sharing website - I'm at a big competitive disadvantage when my customers need to type and remember an extra domain-name level compared to my competitors (who own '.video', '.movie', '.youtube', etc. while i might own '.bobsvideo.fail').
- AndrewDucker 14y ago
  Except that, as discussed above, "youtube" by itself is not a valid host name. It would have to be "mysite.youtube" Still easier than you having "mysite.bobsvideo.fail" I agree, but frankly most people don't even find sites via the domain name. They'll google "Bobs Video" and see what comes up.
  - zokier 14y ago
    why wouldn't "youtube" be valid hostname?
    - AndrewDucker 14y ago
      Same reason that "com" and "net" aren't. Root nodes aren't, from my understanding, valid names for machines. Edit: Seems I'm wrong. See discussion downthread: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105707 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4105707
  - TazeTSchnitzel 14y ago
    Wrong. "youtube." (or "youtube") IS a valid host name. "to." is an example, it was a URL shortening service, but it's down now.

jimktrains2 14y ago

I've personally always thought that tlds was dumb. I never understood why things needed to be partitioned like that. Is there any technical reason to have them? Also, it's very bothersome that domains are backwards. It's always irked me. That being said, the amount of money required for a gTLD is absurd.

jerf 14y ago

Pros: The registry makes a lot of money on an ongoing basis. Cons: Internet nerds whine a lot. It was unfortunately a no-brainer for them.

goblin89 14y ago

Seems like exposing readable unique resource identifiers inevitably brings some sort of confusion and/or unjustness. The only fair alternative would be no visible URIs (UUIDs or plain IPs could be used) and better search. There still is the ordering of results and SEO issues, but it's up to user—change your query or search engine if you aren't satisfied. The security issue (phishing) would require a bit more work to sort out, but I'm sure that's doable. Domain names could still be used, but strictly for basic infrastructure-related things, like search engine directory.