Comments on: ICANN adopts new Web site naming rules

The Internet organization loosens its rules to allow companies, cities, and others to use just about any suffix they want for a Web address.

[Seaspray0]

It's because of ICANN rules that spammers get away with so much. Allowing someone to "try out" a domain name free for 5 days is STUPID! This idea of allowing all these root suffixes is also a bad idea. Many companies rely on the fact that domains like .local or .home are not on the DNS as they host their internal networks on them. Has ICANN taken this into account? Those domains are needed just like the private IP network 192.168.1.x is needed and often used for private networks (non-routable on the internet). ICANN needs to think before they act.

[superguy]

They need some sort of rule that the domain names must be in use instead of all these bs generic landing pages that cyber squaters use.

[winstein]

Generic landing pages are not cyber squatters. Most of these pages are owned by domain name registration companies to monetize generic keyword searches.

This new rule will definitely reduce domain name speculation to a certain extend. On the other hand, it will create confusion with lots of people.

[tom_hymes]

I'm not sure it is certain that "trademarked names will only be available to those trademark holders," In the faq of the announcement posted by ICANN on its site today, they say, "Trademarks will not be automatically reserved. But there will be an objection-based mechanism for trademark owners where their arguments for protection will be considered."

Sounds to me as if trademark holders may now have to police the TLD space themselves, just like copyright holders have to police the world. This should be manageable, however.

[partytildawn-20159620461052270]

My gut reaction to this change in policy is that it is going to be a VERY bad idea. There are more trademark issues at stake than just corporate names as well. Does the person owning pizza.com have legal rights to pizza.pizza as a domain as it would be "confusing" to the average web surfer as to which domain was being visited.

[Perry_Clease]

" Does the person owning pizza.com have legal rights to pizza.pizza"

Yes, it could get interesting. "Pizza Pizza" was used as a catch phrase for Little Caesar's Pizza TV ads so they may put a claim on pizza.pizza

[JCPayne]

Man this is a dumb idea.... Part of the reason the Internet currently works- is because there's some kind of structure. I agree with the previous comments.... This is going to open opportunities for more malicious intent cybersquatters. Under ICANN's new rules these would or COULD all be acceptable web site addresses.

www.www

www.e.bay
www.eb.ay
www.eba.y
www.ebay
www.ebay. (with a period on the end.)

www.p.aypal
www.pa.ypal
www.pay.pal
www.payp.al
www.paypa.l
www.paypal
www.paypal. (with a period on the end.)

This is sooo going to crash and burn I can feel it... Who's bright idea was it to turn ICANN into another www.New(dot)Net type of company???? with their ".xxx "and ".travel" domains.

Most people can already get the domain name they want if they're clever enough to add a hyphen or something to their domain name.

[microg]

Could someone please tell me this is a joke?

[JohnMcGrew]

Another money-making scam to get people to buy more domain names. If I'm a big company, of course I'm going to buy every TLD with my name in front. I have to in order to protect my name legally.

Instead of adding more TLD names, I say ELIMINATE all TLDs. Stop the insanity.

[chris8051]

This is also a bad idea since it will put a huge load on the root name servers who will be forced to resolve all these new top level domains instead of passing the resolution request to the authoritative server

[ms-teresa]

You are right. This is a terrible idea. Now we not only have to watch TLD but every word out there. ru Kidding me?

[soho88]

"In an effort to deter cybersquatters, the organization is likely to charge a hefty price for the new names." - So in other words, ICANN becomes a cybersquatter?

[chinmul]

I agree with soho88 .

Let's put the key points of the article together.

"At its meeting in Paris, ICANN, a not-for-profit organization that oversees the naming scheme for Web sites, voted to accept a proposal that will allow companies to purchase new top-level domain names ending in whatever they like....anywhere from $50,000 to $100,000 or more. ICANN plans to give companies with trademarked names priority for their names."

So, ICANN seems to have decided that being not-for-profit is not good. Charging people big bucks for their trademarked names is better. Have ICANN decided that cybersquatters have something to teach them ?

Regards,

[njsokalski]

Even if they are going to give trademarked names priority, what about organizations? Sometimes somebody is strongly against the purpose of an organization, and since organizations don't usually have their names trademarked, just imagine what could happen then? And even though they are just individuals, the same scenario could be applied if one person hates another. The original purpose of TLDs was to categorize the site (.com=commercial, .edu=eduactional, .org=organization, etc.), but now that they can be custom, that purpose will pretty much disappear.

[cudchewer]

ICANN has demonstrated it has an IQ of zero. There was some order in url naming. Now there is not. The big boys will bombard us with non-memorable names in order to try and catch our attention, which, because they won't follow conventions, will just confuse people. The organisation should be wound up or renamed as ICANT. See my comments on ZDNET if you want a little more examples etc. Message to ICANN: 0/10: follow a different career track!!! Why didn't they consult a behavioural scientist?

[cudchewer]

Furthermore: ICANN is presently a .org. I thought they were nonprofits. I suggest that as they are going to make piles from the big boys they should have to move to a new domain name. Perhaps .nonexistants.

[Pete Bardo]

Hey, non-profit doesn't mean they can't make any money. It means the profits aren't shared by the directors. The organization can make lots of money and still be non-profit. And, as far as the long, multiple sub-domain urls go, that can be done now--just take a look at some of the phishing scam urls that come in your email.

If a company wants to use an obscure url, why should I care if I can't find their web site?

[mathieub]

Just don't do it, I pity the load this is going to create on the network not to mention the servers doing the name resolution. The cybersquatters and profiteers are going to create millions of false names that only a few servers can resolve upping the load and thereby requiring a bunch more servers and IP traffic highways to transport it all, I feel if anything this will be the one straw that breaks the internet camels back....ICANN should change there name to NINCAN (as in nincanpoop)

[verdyp]

note that many broadband routers are also creating their own local root domain names, based on the brand of their maker, instead of using one of the public TLDs.
I'm not usre that the proposal to open theTLDs to everything is a good idea.
Anyway, I'm not even sure that the ROOT servers are prepared to host thousands or more TLDs: these root servers will not support the load as they will be much more frequently requested if there are many new TLDs added everyday, even if ICANN may object a few of them.

It looks like ICANN wants to get its own money, by selling many TLDs (even if these sales are performed by existing third-party registrars that have a signed agreement with ICANN).
Note that many sites will not accept the automatic extension of TLDs due to conflicts with the local organization. It looks very important for many of us to easily detect and know that a domain name is part of the public Internet and can't enter in conflicts with the local privately administered networks.

OK for liberalizaing it a bit, but ICANN's desire to restrict them based on "security" or "morality" is certainly unsane:
- there's absolutely no "security concern" in any single TLD, even if it's called ".xxx" or ".sex" ; the issue is not the name itself but WHO is managing the TLD registry and how it applies security rules if it opens his registry to others...
- the question about morality to oppose the creation of ".xxx' or ".sex" is non-sense: how a domain named in "want.sex.com" can be more moral than "want.sex" ? The only good question to ask is if it is legal, based on international law and treaties (not based on a single national law). So ".pedophilia" or ".child-sex" or ".pro-nazi" would be rejected, but not ".israel" would be accepted even if this name is not recognized in some countries.

So what can we expect now? new TLDs like:
".beijing2008" (hmmm... too late?)
".olympic"
".euro2012"
".republican"
".democrat"
".communist"
".islam"
".christ" : let's talk directly to jesus@christ...
".god" : are 3-letters kept restricted?
".noel" : French children writing to pere@noel
".disney"

We'll see also many inter-corporations groups and syndicates promoting their members within their own domain, but what will happen when there are conflicting groups, sharing the same language but in distinct countries: one will create a name in singular, another using plural, another with abbreviations... So we'll soon have:
".restaurant"
".restaurants"
".restau"
".restos"...

Then add the various translations of the term, and internationally you'll get some nightmare to protect the brand of your restaurant, unless you're big enough to buy your own TLD: ".mcdonald" (but note that this is also a common personnal name) but how about ".quick" which is also a generic name?

Clearly, the ICANN ***must*** designate some TLDs are permanently reserved for private use, for this it must conduct a survey in various countries: this will include :
".loc", ".local", ".locale", ".lokal", ...
".private", ".privat", ".prive", ".priv", ...
".home"
".perso", ".personal", ".personnel", ...
".secret", ".secure", ".security", ...
But also some typical private subdivisions definining reliation types in organizations:
".sales", ".ventes", ...
".accounting", ".comptabilite", ...
".provider", ".fourn", ...
".customer", ".cust", ".client", ".cli", ...
".oem"
".service"

[new_media_works]

Alcohol should no longer be distributed at ICANN meetings.

This is a *crazy* idea -- and I read somewhere that ICANN will forgo the decision to accept or reject new TLDs.... So who will decide -- the Pope?!?

See also http://gaggle.info/miscellaneous/articles/wisdom-of-the-language

[new_media_works]

Sorry -- I meant to link to the blog entry I wrote about this last week: http://gaggle.info/post/72/apple-farmers-unite-lol-rofl-lmfao

[hadaso]

It all ammounts to really getting rid of the separation to separate TLDs. so instead of news.com you could be just news without the annoying .com.
They should have done it from the start. instead they do it now, but now the net is big so they put a high price to stop the flood of domain registratiions. That's wrong.
What they need to do is to just open it up but first month allow only those that have name.com register name (the tld). Then those that have name.net. Then name.org etc. The order is quite arbitrary but since there are already too many TLDs you have to compromise. Eventually everyone will have their domain name without the TLD, which would be equivalent to having just .com but without the annoying .com suffix. nes.com will be just new, hotmail.com will be hotmail. yahoo.com will be just yahoo (if they're still around etc.

[rf_deoliveira]

A new mess is coming to the internet.
End

[JadedGamer]

In an age where most people find stuff via search engines, this will be less of a problem than feared.

The real problem is that companies and ISPs have been able to do this for ages already, by using their own DNS servers. When these "funny" DNS names now can become valid domains in the root servers, how should these other DNSes and their users respond? hould the old addresses stop resolving e.g. "foo.fun" to a local joke server and instead point to the DNS server of the ".fun" domain owner?

(The old naming scheme has failed anyway: There's plenty of porn in the ".name" and ".info" domains for instance. And ".com", ".net" and ".org" have long since lost their original meaning and purpose.)