Live data from Hacker News

Do we need more top level domains?

baekdal.com

21–30 of 32 posts

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#21
You could argue that the main problem with domains is their exposure to end users; they are essentially an implementation detail of a protocol. Since they are relatively simple to type on desktop computers, they've worked well for a long time. Now, finally, with touch displays, they may be called out for being too cumbersome.

The problem to solve is not the look of domain names, but authentication. How do you know that you've reached the "real" web site for a product or service or group? If you could know that in some other way, you wouldn't necessarily need to see an ugly domain name.

I could imagine something much more interactive. For instance, an app that lets you first specify your favorite products and services, that can then pop up a grid of touchable corporate logos to bring you directly to the correct web sites (no URLs needed). The existing DNS registry could be used to either figure out what you need, or give you a short list of choices. In time, apps like these would become so standard that you wouldn't "need" to register all permutations of a trademark, because they would already be choosing the correct one.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#23

This article makes a few good (but separate) points. 1. Hostnames are backwards. com.ycombinator.news makes much more sense than news.ycombinator.com, because the rest of a URL goes from least specific (protocol) to most specific (path components, query, fragment). The only case where the current form of hostname works is email addresses (user at sub dot domain dot tld). IIRC, one of the founders of the WWW (Tim Bern…

Janet (the UK's academic network) used to have an addressing based on country first.

Just like phone numbers it's easier to route global->local order

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#24
The author is reiterating the complaints that major trademark holders raised over a decade ago during the initial generic TLD (gTLD) expansion process in the mid-1990s (see Milton Mueller's book "Ruling The Root" for details). More gTLDs meant the need to purchase one's trademark in each new gTLD in order to protect that trademark. The power that trademark holders/WIPO had in this process lead to "sunrise" periods where established trademarks were allowed to be registered before the registry opened generally, and I've heard claims that the dispute resolution process can tend to favor trademark holders too, though I can't vouch for that.

The problem with the claim that trademark interests trump all others in domain name disputes is that non-domain-name trademarks must be distinctive and are typically for a specific market. To use the example already given in the comments, Apple Inc. the computer manufacturer and Apple Records the music label can coexist because they aren't really in the same market and won't confuse consumers as such. However, domain names don't allow for this level of subtlety, and so whoever registers apple.com first with good-faith intent "wins", despite justified interest from computer, music, and fruit companies.

While this attitude towards new gTLDs makes sense from the perspective of existing second-level domain/trademark holders, what about those who aren't established yet. Is the person searching for a short or meaningful domain name out of luck because trademark holders are sick of new TLDs? There appears to be demand for new TLDs, and it's been shown that the root zone will scale, so it would seem to make sense to allow new TLDs for those whose needs aren't met by .com et al.

The deeper problem in all of this is that we interpret meaning in these unique identifiers, and use that meaning as part of branding and to judge authenticity of a site. If (for example) websites were identified by the public key of the certificate that signed its contents, and if we navigated the web using a directory system instead of typing domain names into browser URL bars, we wouldn't have this problem.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#25

If they fucked the squatters and parked domains off then we'd probably never need another top or other domain again. It's just stupid trying to find an unregistered domain now.

Squatting is fine if it is paid for. I think repeatedly renewing 30 day free trials is a big issue. Companies will "own" thousands of domains for free until they expire. If you show interest in it they will try to sell it back to you for an absurd amount.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#26

You could argue that the main problem with domains is their exposure to end users; they are essentially an implementation detail of a protocol. Since they are relatively simple to type on desktop computers, they've worked well for a long time. Now, finally, with touch displays, they may be called out for being too cumbersome. The problem to solve is not the look of domain names, but authentication. How do you know th…

Bring back AOL keywords!

Seriously though, the DNS system needs to be exact, not a heuristic guess of what the user wants. A guess would make winners and losers out of equal competing sites; kinda like search engines do, but worse since there would be no second slot.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#27
its a great idea, but i'm afraid the restructuring process alone is simply impossible.

what do you do with whitehouse.gov and whitehouse.com who gets what? and even though one is porn why do you get to choose to take away the name?

again... great idea. impossible. too late in the game. (unless chrome removes the .com next)

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#28
We already have a system where anyone can buy any name they want. It's called .com. If we open up the root space as a free-for-all, then we will never be able to extend the system in the future. We can only do it once.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#29

This article makes a few good (but separate) points. 1. Hostnames are backwards. com.ycombinator.news makes much more sense than news.ycombinator.com, because the rest of a URL goes from least specific (protocol) to most specific (path components, query, fragment). The only case where the current form of hostname works is email addresses (user at sub dot domain dot tld). IIRC, one of the founders of the WWW (Tim Bern…

"whoever gets .www is going to make a killing" I think that they'd have to make an exception for historical reasons, and simply pre-register "www.". (This kind of reservation is not unprecedented; "example.com" and similar names are off-limits, according to the original RFC 2606.) So "www." could be introduced as a giant no-op in the modified domain name system, and browsers would simply learn to ignore it.

This would also mark the first time the first version of Netscape will be unable to load www.google.com.

Backwards compatibility on the internet is a pretty big thing.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

#30
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the situations where you have two different companies operating in two different industries with the same trademark? Apple Records v. Apple Computer?

Similar question to mine about different global locations where similar business have similar names. Getting the domain name is an important aspect of choosing your business name - how much harder will that be when you want to open "Computer Solutions" in Kalgoorlie and can't get the domain because of an equally small "Computer Solutions" in Timbuktu?

This won't solve that problem. I think that ICANN should continue to maintain (even enhance) geographic TLDs, so that my little pet groomer in NYC doesn't need to pony up the cash to buy a gTLD or use a commercial second-level domain, but can get a cheap .nyc.ny.us name name.

In your case, whichever Computer Solutions gets big enough to buy the gTLD first wins.

Post reply on HN