ICANN to Incorporate TLDs Already In-use? 262
An anonymous reader asks: "I recently found an article at cnn.com about ICANN considering new top level domains. Some of the proposed TLDs have already been introduced by YOUCANN such as .xxx and have been available to the public at select registrars such as new.net for quite some time. If ICANN incorporates already existing TLDs how will this impact those who have already registered for domain on these TLDs? What implications does this have and how will the ramifications impact how businesses view and utilize the web?"
The Wild Wild Web is born again... (Score:5, Interesting)
At the technical level, most users see the domain-name world through the eyes of the DNS servers at their ISP, so in order for a new TLD to be valid for that user the ISP must honor it. However, this can be overridden by using a secondary DNS server or modifying the hosts file on the users side, so we may end up seeing a wave of malware trying to monkey with a users DNS settings so that their sponsor's regisitry becomes the first one consulted. Some of the other registrars have already resorted to distributing such software in order for their domains to be valid for anybody.
At the legal level, an "I got here first" principle will be claimed in trademark lawsuits by the business interest behind these rogue TLD operations. That's going to be a bit of an iffy question, if trademark law really applies to an entire TLD, especially when ICANN is the generally accepted certifying body for TLDs.
So in the end, businesses who don't want a domain name to "fall into enemy hands" are going to have to register the same domain twice, because when this dispute is finally settled, one of the two registrations will be null and void, but it'll be hard to tell which.
Seems to me like the domain name system may get pushed over the edge on this one. It was bad enough when US businesses started to buy up top-level domains from countries that were lucky enough to have two-letter TLDs that had cute meanings to US audiences. This would even further create a "wild west" nature for domain names. ICANN's authority is downright questionable at times, and now they're about to have conflicts with pretenders to the throne.
This (Score:5, Interesting)
New.net (Score:5, Interesting)
This is going to turn messy (Score:4, Interesting)
Those who hold existing domain names are going to try and get the new ones with their domains. And cybersquatters and others are going to try and do the same thing.
Now, the interesting question would be, if I'm a porn site for petite teens, can I legally have the domain, www.microsoft.xxx?
Re:Huh (Score:3, Interesting)
DNS server in URLS? (Score:3, Interesting)
"http://ICANN`slashdot.org"
"http://OpenNIC`computers.geek"
With "foo" in
Re:What the hell? (Score:4, Interesting)
Other groups have decided they want their own TLDs, so they set up their own name servers (which resolve host names into actual computer IP addresses) with the addition of databases for, e.g., *.web, *.sex, etc. This is unnofficial but technically extremely easy.
ICANN is thinking of asserting its given power over all registries and creating its own official databases for the currently unofficial TLDs. This can cause conflicts with people who have taken domain names with unofficial registries. The fault in my opinion lies with the unofficial registries for advertising an incompatible solution (to use these new names, you need to change your Internet connection settings), but the people who have registered will be in trouble if ICANN starts resolving these new domains and returning "no such domain" for ones that are unofficially registered (and of course vice versa).
Just a guess (Score:3, Interesting)
So, to answer your question, I think ICANN would happily launch these TLDs without any consideration at all that they already exist. And yes, this will create a definite conflict with those other registries, technically speaking, since two identical domains can't exist for everyone on the Internet.
Look, this was bound to happen sooner or later, and it's going to come down to a showdown. Do we want a showdown with ICANN and the possibility of overthrowing it as the Internet's governing body? If so, this is the time to get serious about it, since anyone who is running alternative TLDs will either have to get organized and fight or get stomped into the ground. I hate to put it that way, but that's where this is going if ICANN decides to implement these new TLDs unilaterally without any regard to what's already out there.
I know what it will make *me* think (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Huh (Score:2, Interesting)
They want themselves making new TLDs and taking registration payments for it.
They see a business opportunity and capitalize. No matter if it's a very risky business if the ones with the true rights decide to assert it (as is now happening).
We give ICANN it's power by using it (Score:3, Interesting)
Real alternate roots have been done. (Score:4, Interesting)
Ancient history. Back when it really looked like Network Solutions was going to end up owning the root lock, stock, and root-servers.net it was important. Now, it hardly matters. The real root of the Internet is
This awful kludge new.net is doing doesn't deserve the time it takes to laught about.
Re:The Wild Wild Web is born again... (Score:2, Interesting)
Finally! (Score:4, Interesting)
hmm this just gave me an idea (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:The Wild Wild Web is born again... (Score:2, Interesting)
Not domain squatting, TLD squatting. Worse. (Score:4, Interesting)
New.net and YOUCANN are TLD squatting.
One is spyware. Both are moronic and not taken seriously by anyone outside of spammers and people in serious denial.
(Disclaimer: I am not the OP.)
Reminds me of Area Code snafu (Score:4, Interesting)
This reminds me of a situation at a former workplace.
This workplace (a major U.S. corporation) has its own telephone network. Dialing local phone calls from the PBX was done by dialing 9-NXX-XXXX. Long distance was 8-NPA-NXX-XXXX, but calling a different facility in the corporation is 8-NXX-XXXX, where NXX in the latter case was a 3-digit code assigned by the company (ours was 639+extension, but to call from the normal phone network was 518-454+extension).
Anyway, the corporate network took advantage of the fact that the area codes always have 0 or 1 in the middle digit, and used this to tell the two apart.
In 1995 or so, NANPA started issuing area codes with non-0-or-1 middle digits. This hosed everything up. As I no longer work for that particular corporation, I don't know what they did about this, but while I was working there (c. 1996), a few of the exchanges became valid area codes, and had to be changed.
Strikes me as the same basic problem.
Too many TLDs. (Score:1, Interesting)
Personally, I've NEVER ONCE typed a
Believe me, most of these new TLDs are just not gonna get used, people cannot cope with so many arbitrary namespaces. The
I mean, so what if you can't find a specific domain name available for you to use in your desired namespace? There's a PERFECTLY GOOD REASON why. Someobody else is using it already. That's what names are about. They IDENTIFY things.
If you try to solve a perceived problem of diminishing name availability by piling on new namespaces, it will only cause confusion and remove meaning from names.
Re:The Wild Wild Web is born again... (Score:2, Interesting)
Please, point out the RFC where it specifically says, "the following TLD servers MUST be used"?
TLDs pointless anyway (Score:2, Interesting)
Check out any registration site out there now. You'll find that most people will just register all the non-ccTLDs they can whenever they register a domain name. In fact, they're ENCOURAGED to do so.
All more TLDs do is add more options to that list so that the new central authorities for those TLDs can start raking in the cash.
The only real solution is a total overhaul to the way web pages are addressed. Rather than a DNS-specific method, a context-sensitive model would be infinitely more effective.