4 ms·

Domain names are a mess in my opinion. Even though we have over a thousand TLDs only a very small handful are considered for commerce or even thought to be vali

Domain names are a mess in my opinion. Even though we have over a thousand TLDs only a very small handful are considered for commerce or even thought to be valid. I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". Many people think my email is [email]@[domain].today.com. It's not just the common person's fault but also software engineers / product managers who still have a very restrictive view of what a TLD is (under 3 three letters is the primary restriction I hit). Since I don't believe we'll ever convince people that domains longer than 3 letters / full words are TLDs, I think the solution is every human being gets 10 domain names at marketprice then every domain ownership above that gets graduated ownership costs; the first year is market, second year is $100, third year is $500, fourth year is $1,000, and so on until the 10th year where it levels out at $10k per year. The idea of it being if you want to hold onto a lot of domains you need to pay for it or make the domains economically viable. With what is essentially infinite space, we shouldn't be allowing domains to be like finite real world real estate to be speculated on.

layer8 2mo ago
Habituation is difficult to overcome. If domain names had been freeform from the start, we wouldn’t have this particular issue. Domain names are still a finite space, given that a full domain name can be at most 253 characters, and each domain label at most 63 characters. “Requiring” a .com/.org/.net/.CC at the end isn’t really that much of a restriction. By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available.
- madamelic 2mo ago
  That's a fair point. I knew I was going to popped for the comment about it being an infinite space, haha, because it definitely isn't but domain names don't necessarily have the physical constraints land does. There's no such thing, necessarily, as a domain name that is "in the boonies" or no way to create more domain space. > By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available. Hmmm! I may have to grab this one. The one I really want is madeline.com (it's owned by the family who made Madeline the book) but I am doubtful I will ever get that one without loads of money or ever, hah. I am hesitant to say the domain because of spammers but it is the [shortened version of that name].today.
  - layer8 2mo ago
    My family name was already taken as a domain 25 years ago, but well, you can’t expect to be able to own any but the most rare names. However, the space is large enough that you can invent a name that is available, and it’s fine. I’m more annoyed by products/companies choosing names that are just common words.
- simoncion 2mo ago
  > If domain names had been freeform from the start... I'd argue that they're not freeform now. You need to pay ICANN something like 250k USD to consider your application for a new TLD, plus I think you need to convince them that you actually can operate the infrastructure required to reliably serve queries and subdomain registrations for that TLD. I do agree that we have _way_ more TLDs now than the five or ten we had back in the 1990s, but the barrier to creating a new one is so large that I'd not describe them as "freeform".
1718627440 2mo ago
> I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". I don't like the pollution of the global namespace. If someone thinks, there should be a domain named today, fine, but don't put it in the global namespace by creating a new TLD. DNS is a hierarchical structure, there is no reason domains should all be only 4 segments long. Arguable 'com.' should have really been 'com.us.', but that's history.
- DaSHacka 2mo ago
  From a technical perspective I agree, but from a practicality perspective .com is way too full already, and if not for the alternative TLDs that crop up (.tech, .dev, etc) I would never have been able to get a personal site that's memorable and short.
  - 1718627440 2mo ago
    But you could have the same with 'tech.com.' or 'tech.us.'?
    - madamelic 2mo ago
      I mean sure, if you can convince whoever holds it to sell and also have at least a few million dollars to burn.
- inigyou 2mo ago
  The gTLD scam actually decreased global namespace pollution. You used to register .com .org and .net so nobody else could claim the same name as you (nobody cared about other TLDs). Now with the proliferation of TLDs you can just pick a name and there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD.
  - 1718627440 2mo ago
    > there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD. So more similar names unsorted in random locations in the tree. Aka. more pollution. We seem to have a different idea of the concept of pollution.
rufasterisco 2mo ago
i also have a solution 1. People who can't understand how tld works, learn it. Changing the world to accomodate ignorance is not my preferred direction. 2. We don't link the concept of domain names to economically viable for an US citizen, since that is not a fair for probably a few billion other people. I think this solves none of the current problems with domain names, but at least it does not add any new ones.
bigbuppo 2mo ago
The concept that the only purpose for anything, whether it's a domain, a pair of shoes, a plot of land filled with trees, is economic growth or investment is a perverse sickness.
TZubiri 2mo ago
>I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". Many people think my email is [email]@[domain].today.com Skill Issue

layer8 2mo ago

Habituation is difficult to overcome. If domain names had been freeform from the start, we wouldn’t have this particular issue. Domain names are still a finite space, given that a full domain name can be at most 253 characters, and each domain label at most 63 characters. “Requiring” a .com/.org/.net/.CC at the end isn’t really that much of a restriction. By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available.

madamelic 2mo ago
That's a fair point. I knew I was going to popped for the comment about it being an infinite space, haha, because it definitely isn't but domain names don't necessarily have the physical constraints land does. There's no such thing, necessarily, as a domain name that is "in the boonies" or no way to create more domain space. > By the way, madamelic.com appears to be available. Hmmm! I may have to grab this one. The one I really want is madeline.com (it's owned by the family who made Madeline the book) but I am doubtful I will ever get that one without loads of money or ever, hah. I am hesitant to say the domain because of spammers but it is the [shortened version of that name].today.
- layer8 2mo ago
  My family name was already taken as a domain 25 years ago, but well, you can’t expect to be able to own any but the most rare names. However, the space is large enough that you can invent a name that is available, and it’s fine. I’m more annoyed by products/companies choosing names that are just common words.
simoncion 2mo ago
> If domain names had been freeform from the start... I'd argue that they're not freeform now. You need to pay ICANN something like 250k USD to consider your application for a new TLD, plus I think you need to convince them that you actually can operate the infrastructure required to reliably serve queries and subdomain registrations for that TLD. I do agree that we have _way_ more TLDs now than the five or ten we had back in the 1990s, but the barrier to creating a new one is so large that I'd not describe them as "freeform".

1718627440 2mo ago

> I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". I don't like the pollution of the global namespace. If someone thinks, there should be a domain named today, fine, but don't put it in the global namespace by creating a new TLD. DNS is a hierarchical structure, there is no reason domains should all be only 4 segments long. Arguable 'com.' should have really been 'com.us.', but that's history.

DaSHacka 2mo ago
From a technical perspective I agree, but from a practicality perspective .com is way too full already, and if not for the alternative TLDs that crop up (.tech, .dev, etc) I would never have been able to get a personal site that's memorable and short.
- 1718627440 2mo ago
  But you could have the same with 'tech.com.' or 'tech.us.'?
  - madamelic 2mo ago
    I mean sure, if you can convince whoever holds it to sell and also have at least a few million dollars to burn.
inigyou 2mo ago
The gTLD scam actually decreased global namespace pollution. You used to register .com .org and .net so nobody else could claim the same name as you (nobody cared about other TLDs). Now with the proliferation of TLDs you can just pick a name and there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD.
- 1718627440 2mo ago
  > there's a good chance it's available under at least one TLD. So more similar names unsorted in random locations in the tree. Aka. more pollution. We seem to have a different idea of the concept of pollution.

rufasterisco 2mo ago

i also have a solution 1. People who can't understand how tld works, learn it. Changing the world to accomodate ignorance is not my preferred direction. 2. We don't link the concept of domain names to economically viable for an US citizen, since that is not a fair for probably a few billion other people. I think this solves none of the current problems with domain names, but at least it does not add any new ones.

bigbuppo 2mo ago

The concept that the only purpose for anything, whether it's a domain, a pair of shoes, a plot of land filled with trees, is economic growth or investment is a perverse sickness.

TZubiri 2mo ago

>I have a domain name with the TLD of "today". Many people think my email is [email]@[domain].today.com Skill Issue