ICANN is wrong • Hacker News Board

Re: ICANN is wrong

#11

Post by obituary_latte » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:26 PM UTC

I haven't seen anyone talk about it, but there is another important implication of all these new TLD's: security.

This will give malware purveyors a whole new plethora of vectors to exploit insofar as social engineering goes.

Imagine regular user 'A' is surfing, looking for a cool new pair of shoes. They know that kewlShoes is their fav shoe company evar. Some entity has paid the huge fee to acquire the .shoes TLD in order to sub-let domains at whatever nominal fee they decide.

User 'A' browses to kewl.shoes instead of kewlshoes.kshoes and unwittingly becomes the latest drive-by-download victim happily handing over their credentials to who-knows-who.

I know this is broad and speculative, but think it is worth consideration.

Has there been other discussion about this out there that I haven't seen?

Re: ICANN is wrong

#12

Post by sp332 » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:30 PM UTC

Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc..., they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own.

No one claims that Verisign owns commerce just because they manage the .com domain. Or that Google would own all blogs if they get to sell .blog domains.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#13

Post by jessedhillon » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:34 PM UTC

sp332 wrote: post #12

Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc..., they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own. No one claims that Verisign owns commerce just because they manage the .com domain. Or that Google would own all blogs if they get to sell .blog domains.

These are entirely different things: .com is managed for the benefit of all commercial entities (and Verisign). Google's intended use of .blog would only be to assign domains to Blogger properties.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#14

Post by sp332 » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:35 PM UTC

jessedhillon wrote: post #13

sp332 wrote: post #12

Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc..., they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own. No one claims that Verisign owns commerce just because they manage the .com domain. Or that Google would own all blogs if they get to sell .blog domains.

These are entirely different things: .com is managed for the benefit of all commercial entities (and Verisign). Google's intended use of .blog would only be to assign domains to Blogger properties.

Do you think so? I think they would make far more money by selling subdomains.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#15

Post by icebraining » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:39 PM UTC

sneak wrote: post #10

sajid wrote: post #3

Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names. For example, he writes: "Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit." But the same reasoning applies for domain names: "Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in Sou…

No, because there are hundreds of other places one can register 'amazon' as a second-level domain.

But only .com and .net have no real meaning attached to them. It doesn't really make much sense to register amazon.es or amazon.biz for the Amazon rainforest, now does it?

Re: ICANN is wrong

#16

Post by stfu » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:40 PM UTC

sajid wrote: post #3

Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names. For example, he writes: "Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit." But the same reasoning applies for domain names: "Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in Sou…

Plus ICANN was setting the entry barrier so ridiculously high, that generic domain names are almost exclusively landing in the hands of these corporations, who are already strong in a particular market. It is in so far not stimulating competition but strengthening already successful market players.

The next step is most likely that Google returns the favor to ICANN and puts a stronger weight on the domain extension for search result relevance - just another step towards making a more corporate internet.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#17

Post by icebraining » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:40 PM UTC

obituary_latte wrote: post #11

I haven't seen anyone talk about it, but there is another important implication of all these new TLD's: security. This will give malware purveyors a whole new plethora of vectors to exploit insofar as social engineering goes. Imagine regular user 'A' is surfing, looking for a cool new pair of shoes. They know that kewlShoes is their fav shoe company evar. Some entity has paid the huge fee to acquire the .shoes TLD in…

That already happened with second-level domains, it's not a new vector.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#18

Post by larrys » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:49 PM UTC

"How does Google get the right to capture all the goodwill generated in the word blog? They are not the exclusive owner of it, as they are with the name Google. However they claim the right to become that owner, by paying $185K to ICANN. Nowhere in their proposal is an offer to pay money to the people who created the idea that they would take over. And what if the creators aren't willing to sell it to them? permalink"

Dave - you own scripting.com. What gives you the right to control that? How is that any different? I can't use me.scripting.com without your approval. You didn't agree to letting anyone do that when you bought the domain for $x per year in fees. You didn't invent the word "scripting" you were just the one to get the domain back in 1995, right?

What gives anyone the right to own any domain name "news.com" or "boat.com" etc?

That said I am not a fan of the new TLD's but that's a separate issue.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#19

Post by obituary_latte » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:52 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #17

obituary_latte wrote: post #11

I haven't seen anyone talk about it, but there is another important implication of all these new TLD's: security. This will give malware purveyors a whole new plethora of vectors to exploit insofar as social engineering goes. Imagine regular user 'A' is surfing, looking for a cool new pair of shoes. They know that kewlShoes is their fav shoe company evar. Some entity has paid the huge fee to acquire the .shoes TLD in…

That already happened with second-level domains, it's not a new vector.

OK, sorry. But it greatly increases the surface area, no?

Would you say it really isn't an issue?

Re: ICANN is wrong

#20

Post by duskwuff » Thu, Jun 21, 2012, 5:59 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #2

If it's a company's trademark, fine -- let them buy the corresponding TLD. No harm done. Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict. And of course, trademarks are not fully international. Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.

As an excellent example of this: Consider "Monster". Both Monster Worldwide (e.g, Monster Jobs) and Monster Inc (e.g, Monster Cable) applied for the .monster TLD, and there's at least one other significant claimant to that brand who didn't apply for the TLD (Hansen Natural / Monster Beverage Company, makers of Monster Energy).

Hilariously, both Monster Worldwide and Monster Inc claimed in their applications that granting them the TLD would reduce user confusion:

Monster Worldwide (application #477):

> The proposed .monster gTLD has the following user experience goals: [...] Reduce the risk of Internet users being misled, believing and⁄or acting on erroneous, information about Monster Worldwide, its business partners and⁄or its products and services presented online by unauthorized 3rd parties

Monster Inc (application #271):

> Therefore, .monster gTLD will: [...] represent authenticity and assurance that the domain names are directly associated with Monster thus promoting user confidence...