
ICANN approves relaxation of TLD rules - sah
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/26/internet
======
Prrometheus
I've seen several negative reactions to this decision which I find to be odd
since my reaction was very positive. Here are my reasons why this is awesome:

-It opens up vast new swaths of web territory and makes it easier for the ordinary Joe Hacker to find a memorable web address

-It devalues cyber-squatters current portfolios

-It seems arbitrary to limit TLDs to a certain subset of characters in the first place

Is there something I'm missing? Why all the anguish out there?

edit: Actually, doesn't the existence of TLDs seem arbitrary, too? Why end
every URL with .SomeString?

~~~
jonknee
\- For companies trying to protect their trademark, the job just got
[infinitely] harder.

\- It will be harder to tell you're being phished (apple.computer is a fake?)

\- Companies with half a million dollars to burn will now own TLDs and have an
advantage over smaller companies

\- It means you now have to remember two pieces of information, the domain and
the TLD

\- It's simply a money grab by ICANN

\- etc

My guess is most traffic will stay at the current TLDs just like the recent
ones haven't done much (.biz, .info, .mobi, etc).

~~~
mechanical_fish
_My guess is most traffic will stay at the current TLDs_

I think that's right. The mitigating factor here is that Prometheus'
observation:

 _Actually, doesn't the existence of TLDs seem arbitrary, too? Why end every
URL with .SomeString?_

...is a pretty good description of the _de facto_ situation today. Basically,
there is only one important TLD - .com - and both surfers and browsers are
happy to pretend that it's unnecessary. If you own a domain with any other
TLD, it requires people to remember a meaningless suffix, and/or the placement
of a meaningless dot inside your name. ("deli.cious? del.ic.ious? delic.io.us?
What the hell was that, again?") The result is marketing poison, and nobody
recommends it.

This ICANN decision is bad, but I think the main effect will be to _further_
amplify the value of .com domains (the ones which don't require you to
remember a _now entirely arbitrary_ TLD). And/or it will further cement
Google's lock on the first five seconds of any web-surfing expedition (as if
they needed it).

The only danger is that we will wake up one day and discover that typing
"zyzygy" into a browser redirects you somewhere _other_ than zyzygy.com. If
that happens than we'll know that ICANN has succeeded in setting off the
biggest land-grab stampede in the history of the world, the cybersquatters
will die of ecstacy, and I will want to kick something.

~~~
whatusername
yes and no...

Remember one of the common ways of getting anywhere is to type www.google.com
in the msn homepage that comes up. And then you type www.myspace.com into the
google search box...

This "may" be a solvable issue...

------
vaksel
This is useless, all this will do is line ICANN's pockets with money.

The .com will always be king, so it'll remain THE name for people to get. Look
at the current domains, how many do you see going for the .us? .biz? domain
extensions?

The whole "Big businesses will use it to make it easier for consumer is pretty
dumb too", you can go to toys.ebay.com now, and get where you want to be, all
this'll do is make you go to toys.ebay.

Third try typing that out...you'll be halfway to typing out .com before you
realize you don't need it.

Its just a way for ICANN to make money. Nothing more, this will do nothing to
help the consumer, and is only there so that Google will spend another 5 mil a
year Google.paris, Google.France, google.uk, google.hackernews

We might as well go back to AOL Keywords

------
ComputerGuru
From the BBC article on the topic:

 _"Does Tesco want .supermarket or .groceries?" said Graham Hales, of branding
consultancy Interbrand.

"Or maybe it wants .value or .everylittlehelps. The choice is endless."_

While this may address the lack of domain names now available thanks to
squatters and collectors, it'll make the web a mess! It's already bad enough
with some of the more exotic domain names in use, but with custom TLDs it'd be
easier to just memorize the IP address instead!

~~~
Prrometheus
It will be much easier to get a memorable URL. I don't think that makes that
web a mess. We might even be spared the future clikkr.o.us's of the world.

------
gigawatt
I think it's going to be a lot harder to get yourself a TLD than people think.
In addition to the large sum of money, you also have to prove that it isn't
offensive and doesn't infringe on anyone's rights and "the business or
organization must prove that they are either capable of managing the TLD or
can reach a deal with a company that will" [from the ArsTechnica article].
These obviously won't be issues for the eBays and Amazons of the world, but
how many squatters will actually be able to prove they can manage a TLD? I'm
no expert, but there's gotta be some huge technical and maintenance issues
there.

I'm also curious if people who register TLDs will be required to allow the
general public to register domain names under them.

------
huhtenberg
Among other things this will mark the start of a new era in phishing.

------
revicon
Anyone have news on how the registration process is going to work?

~~~
PieSquared
From the ICANN's perspective:

    
    
      1. Announce that URL's can now contain different TLD's
      2. Make sure the people buying them have at least $100,00 to half a million, if so, let 'em register!
      3. Profit!

------
christefano
I was in favor of this kind of thing and supported AlterNIC in the early 90's,
but I'm not so sure about this new change. ICANN wants to charge how much?
AlterNIC was free, and so are other alternate DNS roots.

------
boredguy8
I'm getting .google

~~~
mechanical_fish
Where did you get your law degree? I hope you specialized in trademarks! ;)

