Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ICANN is wrong

scripting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 94 posts

Re: ICANN is wrong

#81

Post by FixThisPOS »

brownbat wrote: post #66

Funny, I've heard all these same complaints about second-level domains. It's a human-readable addressing scheme. At some point, words will be used. The more memorable, the more usable. All those words that were "too important" to be used as TLDs should be allowed as TLDs precisely because they are important. TLDs should be open to any string of characters, unicode if possible, and registrars should have universal sin…

AMEN.

ICANN's failure to abolish TLDs entirely simply confirms what we already know: It's a scam organization, dedicated to doing essentially nothing except setting up as many of these rip-offs as possible. First there was the $60K rip-off for registrar applicants (even when they were rejected), and now this even more offensive money-grab.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#82

Post by FixThisPOS »

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…

This is such a tired bunch of FUD. Domain names are no different from any other conveyance of trademark.

Corporate entities already have all kinds of specialized domains that could be bullshit. Verizon Wireless's is vzw.com. What does that tell the user? Jack diddly.

Limited TLDs should be abolished. If you can't be bothered to read the name of the domain or type it in correctly, then don't shop online. Good luck with that new Louise Vuiton purse, BTW.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#83

Post by prof_hobart »

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…

There are some subtle differences - Apple owns the .com variant of the URL (being a company, which the fruit isn't), but not the .org. It also doesn't own all of the international apple domains. Apple.co.uk for example belongs to some UK-based illustration company.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#84

Post by andyjohnson0 »

I wonder what the chances are of these new gTLDs being as successful as, say, .biz or .mobi? In other words, not at all successful.

One reason to be optimistic about the failure of gTLDs is recognition. I think people understand that something ending in .com or .net or a ccTDL is an 'internet address', but how do you indicate this with a gTLD like 'book' or 'blog' where there is no visual hint to indicate that it is a domain?

Re: ICANN is wrong

#86

Post by klez »

koide wrote: post #43

I've said it on the previous Dave Winer's article about it. I really don't get what's the big deal as long as the all the previous TLDs continue to exist and operate just like they have been operating. Some enterprises will have the new fancy TLDs, good for them. The rest of us will have to keep going as we have been going (we might even get access some of the new TLDs.) I really doubt that, for example, having my.bo…

So why do people still buy myname.com when myname.wordpress.com is ok?

Re: ICANN is wrong

#87

Post by adventureful »

billpatrianakos wrote: post #73
dfc wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But you did not cover the critical issue; you have not distinguished between www.sex and www.sex.com: "the problem. And it extends to words and concepts that weren't created by anyone living today. Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc. These things shouldn't be TLDs, 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 o…

It's simple, really. A domain name like poetry.com is as accessible to the average person as it is to a company. A TLD on the other hand is something you need to take out a mortgage to own. The difference is in the democracy of it all. Acquiring domain names is a very democratic process even if you take into account squatting and other shenanigans. Scrounge up ten bucks and a web connection and it's yours. TLDs aren'…

And how many mortgages do you suppose it would take to buy poetry.com? It's not even close to accessible to the average person. Maybe if the average person saved every penny they earn for a lifetime, they could buy poetry.com.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#88

Post by koide »

klez wrote: post #86
koide wrote: post #43

I've said it on the previous Dave Winer's article about it. I really don't get what's the big deal as long as the all the previous TLDs continue to exist and operate just like they have been operating. Some enterprises will have the new fancy TLDs, good for them. The rest of us will have to keep going as we have been going (we might even get access some of the new TLDs.) I really doubt that, for example, having my.bo…

So why do people still buy myname.com when myname.wordpress.com is ok?

myname.wordpress.com is not ok when compared with myname.com, but my.babe compared with mybabe.com or myba.be is ok

Re: ICANN is wrong

#89

Post by larrys »

davewiner wrote: post #54
larrys wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"We haven't agreed to these new rules yet." Who's "we" sucka? (Sorry - see 2:17 in on the following had to crack a rare joke): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXDzsuqXFg "the rules everyone was playing by then" The rules are clearly laid out now. The difference is that you need to be able to pay real money to play now. Some of that is greed and some is practical. You need to limit the applicants to organizations with…

We as in the users of the Internet.

Meanwhile the gTLD director resigned yesterday:

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4147181

Post reply on HN