121–130 of 147 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The problem is that .COM is de facto the universal entry point.
De jure too, isn't it? .us exists for US-specific content; .com ought to be reserved for international sites.
I might be missing something, but I completely don't get this idea, especially with the examples provided by the author. I have two major concerns: > Bind searches to domain names, eg "food in chicago" => f02970848a63988965aa40cd368ffcf9046209ca.com This IMO is bad, and goes in completely wrong direction. We've invented search engines to have such phrases not bound to a particular domain. Who would handle the "#://fo…
"and the primary source of frustration is that they are mostly taken by various squatters and other scums of the Internet" "Scums of the Internet"? Oh please. Where are you getting this all from exactly? You've just decided that since you weren't able to buy a domain [1] that you wanted at a price that you could afford to pay that all domains "are mostly taken by various squatters and other scum of the Internet". I m…
But like individuals who buy empty lots from the Forest Service to resell at a premium, can't you understand why this seems like an inefficient market outcome? Sure, it may be desirable/profitable, but not ideal?
Squatting may be a result of our domain registration system, but is it really desirable? to me it seems like a negative externality, that over-uses free domain names and which sells them for 100x times the price from a registrar, despite their non-use.
Why is a squatter adding any value? Should all domains be bought by one person who uses none for his one purposes, and sells each for 1k?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Umm, yes actually? Where do you think the playground equipment manufacturer got their initial capital?
I think you are confusing "investing in" with "producing". They are in fact different activities.
In that sense, investment banker is still a useful and necessary job, unlike domain squatter.
The is a horrendously horrible idea, for the same reason why unicode domain names are a bad idea. Domain names are important because they provide a reasonable amount of trust. If I type http://apple.com , I'm 99.99999% certain that I've connected to Apple's website. This gets nasty with unicode, because a person can spam your email account and get you to click on a URL which looks very similar to something like apple…
>The is a horrendously horrible idea, for the same reason why unicode domain names are a bad idea. So, you suggest that non english speakers should just "learn it" to use DNS?
Using phone number doesn't require you to "learn" Math.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might at first sound like a xenophobic, anglocentric position, but it actually makes quite a bit of sense. There are a number of instances in which it is advantageous / critical to adopt a lingua franca -- that is, a single language that everyone in the world agrees to use for a particular purpose. In the case of domain names, Patrick is right: If we allow characters that appear to be one thing but are actually…
Couldn't this also be mitigated by making all domains mandatorily delegated from a national ccTLD? Eliminate/redirect apple.com to apple.com.us, then make sure it conforms to the rules for US domains (Latin character set only, etc) whereas apple.com.ru comes under the rules of the Russian registrar?
Should the Cherokee syllabary be permitted in .us domains? If so, you are still open to homograph spoofing against the Latin character set(e.g. Ꭹ for y or Ꭲ for T). If not, isn't it a trifle rude to declare that writing system "unamerican"?
What about immigrant languages other than English? Why are Latin-charset language users more American than e.g. Hebrew ones like the long-standing and well-known Yiddish population of New York?
You could ban mixing of code ranges in domains. That might help, but how do you sensibly restrict a code range? Turkish is a Latin charset language, but contains a few extra characters that pose a homograph risk. How do you work out whether a domain is Turkish (and allowed to contain ı) or not Turkish? Also, what if you wanted to differentiate the website for your California-based Yiddish-named restaurant from a similarly named competitor in New York?
Should the governments of Morocco and Algeria be empowered to blanket-refuse Tifinagh domain names? What about when Georgia was part of Russia?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This might at first sound like a xenophobic, anglocentric position, but it actually makes quite a bit of sense. There are a number of instances in which it is advantageous / critical to adopt a lingua franca -- that is, a single language that everyone in the world agrees to use for a particular purpose. In the case of domain names, Patrick is right: If we allow characters that appear to be one thing but are actually…
Couldn't this also be mitigated by making all domains mandatorily delegated from a national ccTLD? Eliminate/redirect apple.com to apple.com.us, then make sure it conforms to the rules for US domains (Latin character set only, etc) whereas apple.com.ru comes under the rules of the Russian registrar?
The concept is that if it were accepted by browsers, devs wont have to struggle with squatters for domain names. So instead we register the hash for a word or phrase we want to use and us that as the domain.
BUT. nothing stops the squatters doing the same thing on this new concept. the squatters will just register the hash leaving you in the same problem as before
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Couldn't this also be mitigated by making all domains mandatorily delegated from a national ccTLD? Eliminate/redirect apple.com to apple.com.us, then make sure it conforms to the rules for US domains (Latin character set only, etc) whereas apple.com.ru comes under the rules of the Russian registrar?
I like this solution. However, ICANN already made profit on .us/.ru domains, when I really think that they should have come as 'free' suffixes to registrations. e.g. I buy 'apple.com' and while if I want to leave it as this, fine. However, I should also have 'apple.com.us' and 'apple.com.ru' so that I can handle these appropriately. It's not perfect, but it at least gives my users a chance to say "hey, I probably pre…
Still, the implementation approach is interesting.