[HN Gopher] TLD Graveyard
___________________________________________________________________
TLD Graveyard
Author : pjf
Score : 173 points
Date : 2021-02-26 09:40 UTC (2 days ago)
(HTM) web link (dzdb.caida.org)
(TXT) w3m dump (dzdb.caida.org)
| Raed667 wrote:
| I remember some people predicting that every big brand would have
| its own TLD instead of .com
|
| So you'd go to `iphone.apple`, `zero.cocacola` or
| `order.macdonald` etc..
|
| I guess that didn't workout yet.
| rualca wrote:
| IIRC Amazon has a few of them.
|
| https://icannwiki.org/Amazon
| ascorbic wrote:
| The .aws tld is widely used for services on AWS.
| k__ wrote:
| How does this work?
|
| I didn't know that companies could simply register TLDs.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Apple has a TLD, as does Google and many others. Give it some
| time.
| nucleardog wrote:
| I mean, besides all the active ones, a good chunk of that "dead
| TLD" list is in fact brands that bought their own TLDs. Hell,
| FCA picked up or has attempted to pick up: -
| .chrysler - .srt - .uconnect - .mopar -
| .dodge - .fiat - .jeep - .ram
|
| And probably others. Which is like... half of the trademarks
| they own. They bought a TLD for the brand of their infotainment
| systems!
|
| So it does in fact look like that's exactly what was/is
| happening.
| rzzzt wrote:
| Canon has one, since 2015-ish:
| https://global.canon/en/news/2016/20160516.html
| dna_polymerase wrote:
| I remember stumbling upon an actual .brand domain only once and
| of all the brands it was the Swiss private bank pictet [0].
|
| [0]: https://www.group.pictet
| Macha wrote:
| blog.google makes it on this site somewhat often
| bombcar wrote:
| Many of those exist - but usually they just redirect to the
| "dot com" - one that doesn't is https://www.home.neustar/
| mrweasel wrote:
| Some of these would have been create as an internal domain (think
| Windows Domain Controller domains) but never as a domain for
| consumers to type in. No one was ever going to type in
| "tractors.newholland" when newholland.com exists.
|
| The high cost of the custom TLDs really keep them from being
| useful for internal systems though.
| BrandoElFollito wrote:
| I do not understand your last sentence.
|
| Internal TLDs are "free" in the sense that they are not
| registed with IANA.
| mod50ack wrote:
| The point is that there is no point in paying that kind of
| money if you're only going to use it internally 99% of the
| time.
| ocdtrekkie wrote:
| I believe that was how Google originally stated they
| planned to use .dev, prior to it being offered publicly for
| registration.
| heisenbit wrote:
| The point is the 1% case where a user trying is accessing
| the "internal" site while using an external DNS under the
| control of Mr. Blackhat pretending to offer internal
| services.
| tinus_hn wrote:
| Also not a smart idea because you're in for a world of
| trouble if someone decides to register that tld you're using.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Oh god yes. I worked for a telco that had a ton of service
| on a domain they no longer owned. In the end that other
| company was just blocked from our network because we
| hijacked their DNS internally. I wonder how much that could
| potentially break with DNSSEC.
| tialaramex wrote:
| I'd be astonished if it doesn't already mean they have
| some massive unexpected security holes.
| sefrost wrote:
| It took me longer than I'd like to admit before I realised
| why I couldn't access any ".dev" sites.
|
| Luckily I had to edit my hosts file for a new client and
| eventually realised the problem was because of a project
| many years ago.
| mrweasel wrote:
| Sure, but there are advantages to have them available on the
| internet as well.
|
| What I'm thinking is having a seperate domain, which many
| companies already have, for corporate services. We have a .dk
| for our actual service, products and email, but we also use a
| .net domain for things like AD, Azure integration and a ton
| of auxilary services.
|
| Having .company rather than .company.net is just a "nice to
| have" and certainly not worth the $185,000 registration fee.
| Had it been cheaper I could see many chooce to have their own
| TLD just to have a more clear border between "infrastructure"
| and "product". It gives the IT department more control of the
| domains they wish to allocate without stealing the from the
| product and marketing teams. I worked for a company where we
| already used a series of subdomains, for backend stuff, but
| down the road those same subdomains became more and more
| relevant to free up for the public parts of our website, and
| it was a pain to move around.
| alangibson wrote:
| I still want to know why there is no .bbq TLD.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Don't let your dreams be dreams.
| https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2-2008-10-23-en
| alangibson wrote:
| If it didn't cost 6 figures just to apply, I swear I would.
| teruakohatu wrote:
| If anyone is wondering about XN--PBT977C and XN--KPU716F, they
| are .Zhu Bao (Translated as .Jewelry) and .Shou Biao
| (Translated as .Watch). I believe the latter means watch as in
| wristwatch, not watch as in watch a movie.
| st_goliath wrote:
| > I believe the latter means watch as in wristwatch, not watch
| as in watch a movie.
|
| Yes. Shou Biao (shoubiao) means wristwatch, with Shou (shou)
| meaning hand and Biao (biao) referring to a time piece.
|
| The verb watch as in "watching a movie" would be Kan (kan)as
| in Kan Dian Ying (kan dianying).
| secondcoming wrote:
| The punycode algorithm is bizarre!
| tasuki wrote:
| Indeed. I recently implemented the decoding part[0] and
| really didn't feel like implementing the encoding...
|
| [0]: https://github.com/tasuki/elm-punycode
| secondcoming wrote:
| I have to do the encoder. Luckily the RFC includes the
| code, but when I look at it I can't help but think that
| there must have been an easier way to solve this problem...
| bluejekyll wrote:
| Like utf8... which mDNS supports:
| https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc6762#appendix-F
|
| I'd personally love to see a proposal to drop puny-code
| and adopt utf8.
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| UTF-8 is problematic because of lookalike codepoints.
| (And the current practice of decoding punycode has
| similar issues: how exactly international domain names
| should work seems to me like a really hard problem)
| bluejekyll wrote:
| I see this argument a lot. I understand it, but I don't
| agree with it.
|
| One issue that I see is that the UIs where this is
| rendered, render the utf8, ie the look alike code points.
| So if it's to protect users, then we'd need to present
| the puny-code and not the rendered native language text.
| But, why would do this? It would defeat a primary reason
| for DNS, to bridge humans to networks. So I just don't
| buy it.
|
| So the look alike issue is still there. So if it's not
| the users, then who are we protecting from the look-alike
| characters? It's definitely not a benefit for those of us
| who've written the code to parse and store DNS names (at
| least from my personal perspective).
| fiddlerwoaroof wrote:
| Browsers use heuristics here and display the punycode
| when it conflicts with a more "likely" domain: e.g. in
| the cross-script spoofing here:
| http://unicode.org/L2/L2004/04305-spoofing.html , Safari
| on macOS displays http://xn--tp-jbc.com as "xn--tp-
| jbc.com" but http://xn--t-zfa.com as "at.com"
| bluejekyll wrote:
| Sure, disambiguation is important, but do we need to do
| that at the serialization level? We increase the parsing
| and transformation costs in DNS, when it seems like what
| we really need is clear rules about what unicode values
| are legal and which are not.
|
| The example of umlaut is really good one though, as the
| umlaut can be an extra code point, or part of the actual
| character. I can see why we'd want to be explicit that
| both are not allowed in DNS...
|
| It still feels like we're solving this issue at the wrong
| layer, i.e. the protocol layer, as opposed to the
| application layer. I'm 100% in agreement on needing
| solutions here, but I think your example illustrates that
| it's a higher-order issue for applications, and not the
| protocol.
| otabdeveloper4 wrote:
| Yeah, I'm half sure it was an elaborate prank on
| somebody's part.
| axaxs wrote:
| This is really interesting, thanks!
|
| I was doing registry work at the time the new gtld program was
| launching, and remember thinking how silly it all was but
| specifically some of the tlds being sought. Sure enough, I
| recognize a few of them listed.
| retrofuturism wrote:
| I don't get it. Did ICANN approve those TLDs and later remove
| them?
| detaro wrote:
| Presumably their owners decided that it actually wasn't worth
| the cost and effort to continue maintaining them, so they got
| shutdown.
| microtherion wrote:
| One of the defunct TLDs is .piaget; I suppose needing a TLD
| was just a developmental stage that they eventually outgrew.
| tomcam wrote:
| That was very very good
| Ekaros wrote:
| I wonder if some of them were also move to protect trademark.
| Will they be reissued at some point in future?
| phgn wrote:
| In case you are wondering what whacky top-level-domains there are
| right now (there are over 1000), I'm working on a faster search &
| categorisation of them at https://domain.garden.
|
| While some extensions are just absurd, I think there is a good
| branding potential with choosing some of these TLDs (like for
| crisp.chat, frame.work or magic.link).
| monkeybutton wrote:
| Neat website, the simplicity is nice.
| phgn wrote:
| Thank you! That's the main thing I wanted to solve, having a
| simple site to see available domains and where to best buy
| them. Glad that's resonating.
| vxNsr wrote:
| Take a look at https://tld-list.com/ might what you're looking
| for.
| phgn wrote:
| Yep that website is useful as well, with more details about
| each registry. Mine is more focused on finding available
| extensions for a given name.
| Thorrez wrote:
| I wonder why .yu (Yugoslavia) isn't there.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.yu
| duskwuff wrote:
| .yu shut down in 2010. This site looks like it started
| collecting data in 2011.
| benatkin wrote:
| .bnl - Buy n Large from WALL*E
|
| https://pixar.fandom.com/wiki/Buy_n_Large
| dehrmann wrote:
| ICANN really overplayed its hand with TLDs. It turns out there's
| obvious massive value in legacy ones like .com, but they acted a
| bit too slowly with country hack domains like .io, and then
| massively overdid it with some of the recent expansions.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| ICANN didn't create any of these new ones; registry operators
| who applied for them did. It's a crucial distinction. I guess
| you could argue that ICANN should've limited it somehow, but
| ICANN picking and choosing the haves and have nots like that
| would be worse than the current situation, where pretty much
| anyone who wanted to could get whatever string they wanted
| (subject to some reasonable restrictions).
| Clewza313 wrote:
| In case anybody else is wondering what the two ccTLDs on the list
| are:
|
| - .an was the Netherlands Antilles, now replaced by its
| constituents .cw, .sx and .bq
|
| - .tp was East Timor, now renamed Timor Leste (.tl)
|
| There are plenty more not listed here though, including .su
| (Soviet Union) and .yu (Yugoslavia).
| leipert wrote:
| My favorite TLD that never was used is .dd:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.dd
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| The owner of `dd/` might let you register an SLD someday.
|
| https://www.namebase.io/domains/dd
| lathiat wrote:
| Namebase is not part of the "traditional" DNS and names are
| not available on normal ISP nameservers, so people can't
| use it unless they switch to using the blockchain
| "namebase" DNS.
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| This is very true.
|
| Namebase is a marketplace atop of the Handshake protocol.
| Puma Browser supports it natively, as well as NextDNS. If
| you _really_ want your own TLD (or even to have your own
| name as a TLD), Namebase is the way to go (for now).
|
| Maybe I should've added this information to my initial
| comment, I seem to have angered some folks.
| eqvinox wrote:
| .su isn't listed because it's still active.
| ainar-g wrote:
| For those wondering, the types of domains and sites that
| still use .su today (according to my personal experience)
| are:
|
| 1. Sites that were created back then and just stayed (a very
| low number).
|
| 2. Sites of organisations operating in most of the ex-USSR or
| CIS countries.
|
| 3. People who are nostalgic or associate themselves more with
| the Soviet Union than with any of the states that exist in
| its territory today.
|
| 4. Just-for-fun types of people.
| whizzter wrote:
| Naturally some Finns seems to have registered kos.su (kossu
| is Finnish slang for the Koskenkorva vodka), even seems to
| have functioned as an url-shorterner for a while. :)
| sippeangelo wrote:
| Fair amount of linux centric domains as well. I wanted to
| get one, but my parents wouldn't let me send my passport to
| russia...
| skissane wrote:
| I don't think .su will ever die.
|
| Come 2091, people will celebrate the 100th anniversary of the
| fall of the Soviet Union, and .su will still be alive and
| kicking.
| ex3ndr wrote:
| No one is going to celebrate this.
| skissane wrote:
| Commemorate might be the better word.
|
| But I'm sure _somebody somewhere_ is going to be
| celebrating.
|
| America's hawkish (neo)conservatives continue to
| celebrate the fall of the Soviet Union. "Presidents
| Reagan and Bush Sr beat the USSR!" (Maybe that is an
| oversimplification of the truth, but it sounds good to
| their ears.) In 2091, there is likely to exist some
| intellectual successor/descendant to that school of
| thought, eager to mark that centenary.
|
| What do the Russian Orthodox think? They went from an
| authoritarian regime which officially opposed the Russian
| Orthodox Church to a (still rather authoritarian, but
| arguably somewhat less so) regime which wants to be
| publicly seen currying favour with it. I'm sure _some_ of
| them view that as an improvement. If that 's what _some_
| of them think, why wouldn 't they celebrate in 2091?
|
| What about the countries which gained their independence
| through the downfall of the Soviet Union? I think many
| people in many of those countries will be celebrating the
| centenary of their independence.
| emteycz wrote:
| The day Soviet tanks left our country in 90s is still
| celebrated with fireworks. And Velvet Revolution Day is
| the biggest annual celebration, literally most of the
| country celebrates, with special events (photos, movies
| theatre...) everywhere that try to describe how bad it
| used to be.
| agapon wrote:
| > But I'm sure somebody somewhere is going to be
| celebrating.
|
| For sure. https://imgur.com/gallery/L9VNpP4
| hakfoo wrote:
| I'm surprised it doesn't enjoy some currency as something
| analogous to .eu for the CIS or former-Soviet countries in
| general.
|
| There are probably a lot of firms that serve many of these
| countries, and having a single unified presence at foo.su
| is probably more efficient than registering foo.ru, foo.ua,
| foo.kz, foo.lv, etc.
| yoz-y wrote:
| A lot of people don't see past attachment to Soviet Union
| as positive. So I doubt this would have much usage except
| for fun.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| There are still active domains on it so it can't die unless
| someone somehow forcefully expropriates those domains from
| their owners (and seeing as how the Soviet Union no longer
| exists I think it'd only fall to ICANN to do that). I think
| it'll just continue living on as a zombie forever.
| pzb wrote:
| I put together a historical list of TLDs that had been removed
| in 2017:
| https://github.com/pzb/TLDs/blob/master/removed/rmtlds.csv . It
| overlaps with the early part of this list.
|
| .cs was the first removed TLD as far as I was able to find.
| egberts wrote:
| In Soviet Russia, domain name never dies.
| dane-pgp wrote:
| I think that should be:
|
| In Soviet Russia, top level authority expires you!
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| In Soviet Russia, domains name you!
| mkoryak wrote:
| I am russian, and while I understand why these types of
| jokes exist, I never understood why they are "jokes". Are
| they actually funny?
|
| Was the first one funny but then people kept making more
| which aren't funny?
|
| Why is it a joke to use sentence structure from another
| language?
|
| Also, OPs post was actually clever, which can't be said of
| 99% of these things
| dane-pgp wrote:
| The first ones were definitely funny, and the format was
| popularized as part of a successful stand-up comedy
| routine by Yakov Smirnoff, although he wasn't the first
| to use it.[0]
|
| Because the template can be filled with a wide variety of
| specific nouns and verbs, it has become a bit of a
| snowclone[1] or a meme in its own right[2], like the
| "Xzibit Yo Dawg" meme[3].
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Soviet_Russia
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowclone
|
| [2] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/in-soviet-russia
|
| [3] https://knowyourmeme.com/memes/xzibit-yo-dawg
| deathanatos wrote:
| Someone linked you to the Wikipedia article, and I just
| want to quote this bit of it:
|
| > _and the inverted Soviet form something menacing or
| dysfunctional, satirizing life under a communist
| dictatorship_
|
| A proper use of the "In Soviet Russia" meme isn't just
| reversing the words to make it sound like "Russian"; it'
| supposed to also suddenly construct a sentence that
| implies something dystopian. (And ideally, somewhat
| humorously, usually contextually so.)
|
| I think the right ones are generally only at "sensible
| chuckle" level -- you're not going to die laughing
| usually. I don't think the one above really fits the
| template though.
| t0astbread wrote:
| It's one of those things, I think, where the individual
| jokes aren't meant to be funny but rather the fact that
| they're all terrible yet people keep telling them is the
| real joke. Similar to Chuck Norris jokes.
|
| As for the foreign language part, it's probably meant to
| lean into stereotypes about Russian English speakers to
| emphasize the "trashiness" of the joke. You could have an
| ethical discussion about that.
| dkjaudyeqooe wrote:
| Funny is definitely subjective. I can see how you might
| not find this funny given your personal sensitivities.
| Also there may be cultural differences at play or you may
| have a different view of communist or totalitarian states
| than people in the West.
|
| This is true not only for jokes but for pretty much every
| good idea. More often these are just a reference to
| something that is (was) funny, like movie reference or
| quote.
|
| I don't know why you think this references language
| structure (see next point).
|
| OP may have been clever (or not), but in my reply I
| sought to assert the canonical form where you take 'A
| <verb> B' and write 'In Soviet Russia B <verb> A'.
| eitland wrote:
| In case it helps, here's one about Norwegians:
|
| - American guy goes to the dentist and says "do it fast!"
|
| - German guy goes to the dentist and says "do it well!"
|
| - Norwegian guy goes to the dentist and says "does it
| hurt?"
|
| It is a thing in some cultures. Norwegians poke fun at
| the Swedes (and ourselves), Englishmen make jokes about
| the Irish and probably the other way around too.
|
| I hope we can agree that it is OK also in the future. I
| don't want the world to be too dull.
| ainar-g wrote:
| Some of those at the end seem to be IDN test TLDs[1], which, if
| Wikipedia is to be believed, were created in October of 2007.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IDN_Test_TLDs
| walrus01 wrote:
| if anyone want to know about what sort of companies and persons
| are involved in the new generic TLD game, take a look at these
| links. One of the biggest, Donuts LLC, is part of the same group
| of people who tried to buy .org
|
| http://domainincite.com/26198-breaking-failed-org-buyer-etho...
|
| https://domainnamewire.com/2020/11/19/donuts-is-acquiring-af...
|
| https://domainnamewire.com/2021/01/22/breaking-ethos-capital...
|
| List of gTLDs run by Donuts: https://icannwiki.org/Donuts
|
| Or you can just google "donuts abry acquisition dot org"
|
| Or you can google "Ethos capital .org":
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ethos+cap...
|
| Or you can google "Fadi chehade ethos capital":
| https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=fadi+cheh...
|
| In my personal opinion it's nothing but a bunch of rent-seekers,
| in the classical economics textbook sense of the word.
| m463 wrote:
| I think "ethos" in the name is funny in respect to, well, lack
| of respect
| microtherion wrote:
| The name reminds me of an often quoted line in The Big
| Lebowski: https://getyarn.io/yarn-
| clip/1acb0717-c59e-44ed-a094-ca69b53...
| pfortuny wrote:
| The classical meaning is "character/customs" of a comunity,
| so it may well be that they were speaking of themselves...
| phgn wrote:
| Do you not think some of these domain extensions are providing
| value to people (like incorporating a "cool" domain name into
| branding like crisp.chat, frame.work or magic.link)? You don't
| have to use their TLDs.
| walrus01 wrote:
| What makes a TLD that costs $45 or $75 or $200 a year any
| better or more valid than one that costs $12 or $15 a year?
|
| Because one private for-profit company holds the sole rights
| to register things on it, and can charge what they want?
|
| Why should ICANN be giving a license to private rent-seekers
| the ability to charge more than a fair profitable price for
| something that exists in a fully-automated software
| purchase/checkout/zone file entry work flow?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| When did DNS stop being a system for identifying servers, and
| start being a system for owning words?
| falcor84 wrote:
| Why would there be a distinction? Names have always been
| about "owning" an identity. The Brothers Grimms'
| Rumpelstiltskin would be just one historical example of the
| power attached to knowing and using a name.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| I find this question confusing, because it's always been
| somewhat about brand and word ownership. Like `mit.edu` or
| `ibm.com`.
|
| DNS is quite literally all about names, it's what the N
| stands for.
|
| Can you give an example where name ownership was
| unimportant to folks using DNS?
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| MIT and IBM are names they already had. But nobody owned
| edu. or com. - so why does somebody own space.? Why were
| we in a position where a private equity firm tried to buy
| org. for over a billion dollars, and nearly succeeded!?
|
| DNS used to be a text file that people would pass around.
| Now... _this_. Something has gone terribly, terribly
| wrong.
| bluejekyll wrote:
| DNS was designed specifically as a replacement for
| /etc/hosts. It's in the opening paragraphs of RFC 1034
| about why a single file wasn't viable anymore.
|
| Even for TLDs I think the problems/issues tends to be
| more about operations of the TLD, because it's generally
| a little more work than just a zone under a TLD.
|
| But yes. Changing ownership of a TLD that's operating
| under existing guidelines for all the domains that use
| it, is a bad thing. I'll caveat that with, if it can no
| longer be operated by the group doing so it should change
| ownership, but the same protections for the zones inside
| it should be preserved in the sale.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| From the very first moment of its existence, as in order to
| uniquely identify a server, the string you assign to it has
| to be unique. This naturally lent itself to a first-
| come/first-served allocation string, and thus, the
| registrant of each string became the sole owner of that
| string, allowing them and them only to point said string at
| their server(s). Absent that mechanism of sole control and
| global uniqueness, DNS doesn't work.
| bombcar wrote:
| Sometime around pets dot com, back in the late 90s.
| throwaway3699 wrote:
| Pets.com is a bad example because nobody would name a
| traditional store "Pets". But a TLD like "Google.com" is
| _clearly_ representing a brand and not just a particular
| set of servers.
| young_unixer wrote:
| I didn't know that companies and institutions could create TLDs
| with their name, fully dedicated to them.
|
| At this point, why not just accept any string of characters up to
| a certain lenght as a TLD? We've already lost the advantages of
| having fewer TLDs, no one can remember what is and isn't a TLD,
| so we have to assume that _anything_ could be a TLD.
|
| I don't realy agree with the proliferation of so many TLDs, but
| the damage is already done and the logical step forward is to let
| anytjing be a TLD.
| tialaramex wrote:
| > we have to assume that anything could be a TLD
|
| Yes. This has been the correct way to handle it for at least a
| couple of decades and perhaps arguably more. RFC 2606 reserves
| a handful of TLDs (such as .example and .invalid) and it would
| be sane to treat these specially (e.g. this-is.invalid just
| isn't a valid DNS name) but otherwise the most you could say
| for sure about any TLD is that you don't know whether it
| exists.
|
| There's a _lot_ of bad legacy code out there which will do
| things like reject email addresses with a TLD longer than three
| characters, don 't do that even if you think .horse was a bad
| idea.
|
| > At this point, why not just accept any string of characters
| up to a certain lenght as a TLD?
|
| With the exceptions in RFC 2606 and the practical constraint
| that some TLDs are "poisoned" by decades of misuse (e.g. .corp)
| this is the situation today.
|
| However the next question is - who shall operate the registry
| for each of these TLDs? So that's what the ICANN process is
| for. It's not a problem for .some-ludicrous-vanity-domain-for-
| a-corporation as on the one hand, nobody else wanted those
| names (often even the corporation itself never uses them, it's
| just burning money) - but it gets trickier for .horse where
| understandably the people who own a horse's name in .horse
| don't want to hear about how the company operating it went
| bankrupt and now they need to pay somebody else or their site
| stops working.
| rsync wrote:
| "... even if you think .horse was a bad idea ..."
|
| Which is demonstrably _not_ the case:
|
| http://endless.horse/
| koliber wrote:
| I really want to get to the bottom of this.
| tialaramex wrote:
| Well, surely more to the point, http://my.lovely.horse/
|
| (If you can't guess what that leads to, you might benefit
| from two pieces of context. The European broadcast region
| has an organisation for its Public Service Broadcasters,
| Eurovision, which holds an annual Song Contest that is
| known for quirky up-beat winning songs. There was a Channel
| 4 comedy show about the lives of Catholic priests living on
| a small Irish island and in one episode they enter the song
| contest...)
| labawi wrote:
| > the practical constraint that some TLDs are "poisoned" by
| decades of misuse (e.g. .corp)
|
| I would call it poisoned by decades of "misuse". From my POV,
| squatters rights should apply and ICANN has no business
| delegating widely used TLDs, even if they are not formally
| registered (in which case they would be expected to pay
| $$$$-$$$$$$ / y).
|
| TLDs like .onion, .corp, .lan, and other widely used TLDs
| (say .bit, .dn42, ...) should not be delegated by ICANN,
| unless it is to the undisputable current users of the TLD.
|
| There is no way a hobby project could pay $$$$$$ for
| registration, and if it does become successful, while not
| using the root nameserver services, I don't see why it should
| pay for the privilege.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| > From my POV, squatters rights should apply and ICANN has
| no business delegating widely used TLDs, even if they are
| not formally registered (in which case they would be
| expected to pay $$$$-$$$$$$ / y).
|
| Who's the "they" in this sentence? ICANN delegating the TLD
| formally is the mechanism by which you pay money to
| delegate a TLD. Until said TLD is delegated, it's not a
| real TLD, and does not resolve on the Internet. You can't
| use it in a meaningful sense until it is a real TLD, and
| once it is a real TLD, global collision rules apply. The
| fake use cases and the real use cases are fundamentally
| incompatible.
| labawi wrote:
| I think I've had this discussion with you.
|
| "they" are TLDs
|
| I can use tor (.onion), namecoin (.bit), dn42 test net
| (.dn42) or others. They work and people use them, so not
| fake, just not registered with ICANN. Most of them work
| fine along with ICANN DNS. They require alternative forms
| of DNS resolution, so they don't work with ICANN DNS, but
| that is actually desirable for many of them.
|
| I can also have .lan addresses on my router, .corp
| addresses on corporate vpn, or whatever in my hosts file
| and they work. Hosts file works even better than global
| DNS, so the domains are definitely real, not fake. Just
| not global, even when globally used.
| tialaramex wrote:
| .onion was permanently reserved for Tor (which I imagine is
| what you'd prefer) in RFC 7686.
|
| It makes no sense to do this for say .corp because in fact
| the existing "squatter" users just arbitrarily assign
| whatever names they want, so unlike facebookcorewwwi.onion
| there is no agreed global meaning of headquarters.corp or
| hplaserjet.corp - the namespace is just poisoned.
| labawi wrote:
| On the contrary, .corp is a widespread totally
| established internal use domain. Just like .dev was.
|
| No, it is not globally resolvable, but it is in the
| _same_ namespace (no way to add a different namespace
| while retaining compatibility), is _widely_ used and I
| don 't see why a dozen or so widely used TLDs need to be
| auctioned off to Donuts co. or whoever. It's not like we
| have a shortage of words or even operational gTLDs these
| days.
|
| I'm not suggesting any TLD with 3 users should be off-
| limits (though I don't agree with gTLDs altogether) just
| the really widely established ones. If a
| project/group/whatever successfully squats a TLD and gets
| widely established, then it should be protected as well.
| If nothing else, then by squatting itself.
|
| We do not have another namespace for alternative
| resolution strategies, so ICANN should not simply rent
| away all names.
|
| Last time I heard, ICANN was corrupt. As far as I am
| concerned, they have no more right to assign .corp or
| whatever, than I have a right to reassign and use it for
| other purposes on my systems. I am not paying 185000$ for
| gTLD, nor renting a long domain to use for internal
| purposes, or with my friends.
| tpetry wrote:
| The problem with your concept is determing who is responsible
| for ,,.hackernews"
| cdmckay wrote:
| They don't do that because they can charge companies $185,000
| to become a custom TLD and $6,250 a quarter after that.
|
| https://webmasters.stackexchange.com/questions/24460/how-can...
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| I've been looking for a similar reference to this all week,
| thanks.
| usrusr wrote:
| Because all the abuse and conflict we see/saw within
| conventional TLDs surely becomes easier to handle within a
| single, centrally administered namespace?
| Havoc wrote:
| Is there a way to determine how risk a TLD is in this regard?
|
| Keen to use a .land for something but would suck if it
| disappeared.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Launched generic TLDs that actually have customers owning their
| domains will never disappear. The worst that will happen is
| that the registry services will be seamlessly transferred to
| another operator (as a registrant you likely wouldn't even
| notice because your interactions are with a registrar, not the
| registry). See ICANN's EBERO process which ensures that even in
| the case that a registry operator abruptly fails with data
| loss, the TLD and all domains on it can still be quickly
| transitioned to another operator:
| https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en
|
| Tl;dr they've thought about how bad for the Internet it would
| be if TLDs with many users on them could just fail and
| disappear, so they've taken steps to prevent that from ever
| happening. There's a reason almost everything on this list is a
| brand TLD. Your biggest risk as a consumer isn't that your TLD
| will disappear, it's that the price will be jacked up on it
| (though this has been happening on .com and .org too).
| phgn wrote:
| Almost all of the deactivated top-level-domains are brand names
| or for countries that no longer exist. I think for global TLDs
| that investors payed money for there is a low risk of them
| disappearing.
|
| .land specifically seems to be owned by Donuts Inc, so that
| will stay [0]
|
| [0] https://icannwiki.org/.land
| koolba wrote:
| And each of these sent at least $250K to ICANN to open up the TLD
| right? What a scamola.
| pas wrote:
| Nobody forced the registrars to do so, no? Plus it was clear
| what they are getting.
| clxxx wrote:
| I find it odd that TLD's can be bought and sold in such a manner.
| I understand those like .edu, .gov, .com, and country denoted
| TLD's because they seem to denote a purpose behind the ownership
| and I was under the assumption that ICANN simply maintained them
| as a non-profit. It looks to be more like a money fueled rat race
| to swoop up as many names as possible for the purpose of land
| lording over them. Perhaps it's a limited and cynical take, but
| is there more to the picture?
|
| I've heard of decentralized protocols like Handshake attempt to
| decentralize the entire sector of TLD's but they just seem be
| riddled with early profit seekers buying up all the names, so it
| seems unlikely the large browsers will incorporate them. Can
| anyone speak on the TLD space and it's future? What was the
| incentive of ICANN starting the gTLD's and what are the
| assumptions behind browsers accepting TLD's?
| tasuki wrote:
| > I've heard of decentralized protocols like Handshake attempt
| to decentralize the entire sector of TLD's but they just seem
| be riddled with early profit seekers buying up all the names,
| so it seems unlikely the large browsers will incorporate them.
|
| Yes, and any system will be riddled with early profit seekers.
| With Handshake, there's a lot less profit to seek:
|
| 1. The current TLDs are pre-reserved on Handshake for the
| current owners.
|
| 2. The number of Handshake TLDs is ~infinite. If it were to
| catch on, I'd expect a race-to-the-bottom for second level
| domain prices.
| hakfoo wrote:
| A TLD that enforced a "one organization, one name" rule might
| reduce the land-rush mentality.
|
| I recall talking with someone who worked with a trade school,
| this was probably about 15 years ago, and they were very proud
| of their .edu domain. It was seen as a bdge that they were a
| federally-sanctioned college as opposed to just a Learning
| Annex with delusions of grandeur.
|
| At the time, they could only get the one domain schoolname.edu
| and couldn't just buy "enrollatschoolname.edu" or
| "schoolnamegoldenhamsters.edu" for a marketing push. Not sure
| if that's changed.
| petecooper wrote:
| Site was very slow for me, so I made a snapshot:
|
| http://web.archive.org/web/20210226094451/https://dzdb.caida...
| waheoo wrote:
| TLDs,a solution to a problem nobody has.
|
| It's just a programmers solution to a programmers problem.
|
| The only reason .com even matters is because it got ingrained in
| people's minds early on.
|
| You could drop all TLDs tomorrow and nobody would care.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| > You could drop all TLDs tomorrow and nobody would care.
|
| Huh? That would cause all domain names to stop working. People
| would certainly care! Can you expand on what you mean by "drop
| all TLDs" and how all of the existing Web content and links
| therein would continue to work if this were done?
| iFreilicht wrote:
| What was the problem, then? I thought the idea of TLDs
| initially was to separate domains between countries so they
| could manage them themselves and create less collisions between
| local registrars?
| JdeBP wrote:
| RFC 882 explains it in detail, and contrary to what M. waheoo
| says it is a problem that many people have. One can find
| analogues to it in many fields, such as why there isn't a
| single telephone directory book that covers the entire world.
| skissane wrote:
| It is missing what is (to the best of my knowledge) the first
| ever deleted TLD - .nato - deleted in July 1996 -
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.nato
| ksec wrote:
| .Web is still in dispute 5 years after the auction finished.
|
| When will .exe, .jpg or .png ever also be in TLD?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Never. ICANN won't be delegating such common Web filenames as
| that because there's little upside but massive potential
| downside. That'd be really confusing too.
| 0x0 wrote:
| Well there is already a TLD with a well known executable file
| extension: .com
| CydeWeys wrote:
| .com was delegated 36 years ago, well before the existence
| of the World Wide Web. It's a _little_ bit of a different
| situation.
| breakingcups wrote:
| You'd also be hard-pressed to find a widely used
| operating system that still allows .com files to be
| executed.
| 0x0 wrote:
| Windows 10 still runs .com files. At least the 32bit
| builds. I wouldn't be surprised if the 64bit builds would
| accept at least com-renamed PE .exe files too, despite
| the lack of NTVDM
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| The latter are domains on Handshake.
|
| - https://www.namebase.io/domains/jpg
|
| - https://www.namebase.io/domains/png
| [deleted]
| NetOpWibby wrote:
| Namebase[0] is a marketplace built upon Handshake[1], a
| decentralized ICANN (simplistic comparison). I checked these dead
| TLDs against Namebase and a fair number of them are blocked from
| auction. However, a surprising number of them have already been
| claimed.
|
| I created auctions for the remainders.
|
| Granted, unless your devices are using a Handshake resolver (or
| NextDNS[3]), you won't be able to actually use these domains but
| browser adoption seems (tentatively) likely. Puma Browser[4]
| (mobile app) supports Handshake so who knows...these dead TLDs
| may see life again.
|
| --
|
| [0]: https://namebase.io
|
| [1]: https://handshake.org
|
| [2]: https://nextdns.io
|
| [3]: https://www.pumabrowser.com
| OliverJones wrote:
| A lot of those unused TLDs seem to be brands. The companies
| behind the brands may have bought some of them to keep squatters
| at bay.
|
| At any rate, it's a way for brand-owning companies, or squatters
| hoping to shake down those companies, to help support ICANN
| financially. TLDs are expensive to register.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's not about keeping squatters away. TLDs do not use a first-
| come first-served allocation system. ICANN will not delegate an
| obvious brand name to any entity other than that trademark's
| owner, and there are mechanisms built in to contest allocations
| (just look at .amazon as an example).
|
| What's mostly going on here is simply that companies bought
| something without a plan for using it and then dropped it after
| a period of time as the expenses continued adding up and they
| continued doing nothing with the TLD.
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > ICANN will not delegate an obvious brand name to any entity
| other than that trademark's owner
|
| Any given potential name can be the subject of multiple
| (registered, not to mention unregistered) trademarks in
| different combination of field of business and territorial
| jurisdiction, so even if you have high trust that ICANN won't
| issue something that is a trademark somewhere in the world to
| anyone other than the trademark owner (which you probably
| shouldn't be, given that it's pretty much impossible), you
| have very little reason to be sure that (1) your brand isn't
| also someone else's trademark in some jurisdiction and field
| of business, and (2) that person won't get a TLD for it.
| Especially in the early round of newTLDs when it wasn't clear
| the degree to which the prediction that having your own TLD
| would be expectation as much as having a second-level domain
| in the most appropriate TLD had been previously would turn
| out to be true, preemptively acquiring the TLD even without a
| clear plan to use it made a lot of sense if the cost of doing
| so is a small fraction of the value of the brand.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-02-28 23:02 UTC)