Do we need more top level domains?

Post by Sidnicious » Fri, May 07, 2010, 5:28 PM UTC

mcav wrote: post #8

Sidnicious wrote: post #5

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…

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

The same way Apple got me.com: Whichever one is big enough to buy the domain off the other one gets it.

Post by Sidnicious » Fri, May 07, 2010, 5:36 PM UTC

makecheck wrote: post #19

Sidnicious wrote: post #5

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.

I kid. It's not going to be www, but whichever domain or set of domains is easy to type, sells subdomains for cheaps, and is aggressive about spam control will win.

It might be worthwhile for ICANN to make three-and-fewer character names off-limits to private registration.

Re: Do we need more top level domains?

Re: Do we need more top level domains?