| |||||||||||||
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)Posted May 12, 2012 17:23 UTC (Sat) by drag (subscriber, #31333)Parent article: My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica)
the whole .tld thing has become supremely irritating.
I can't help think the whole concept was a big mistake in the beginning.
(Log in to post comments)
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Posted May 13, 2012 23:05 UTC (Sun) by copsewood (subscriber, #199) [Link]
Way for ICANN to build out its empire, grow salaries etc.
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Posted May 14, 2012 10:59 UTC (Mon) by Seegras (subscriber, #20463) [Link]
I said it years ago, and it's still true:
If you open up one TLD after another, people will feel compelled to register their name or whatever in each new TLD that comes along.
The only solution is to open up the namespace to ALL possible TLDs from 3 characters (those not already assigned) up to a certain length (maybe 20). Make it so nobody can own a TLD, but everybody can register any second-level Domain under any possible TLD.
This way, the namespace is much too big that anybody can register all of its trademarks or names or whatever under all of the possible TLDs, hell, not even all likely domains under all probable TLDs. www.cocacola? www.coke? www.coke-light? www.cola-zero? cola.zero? cola.light? coca.cola? And so on.
My own private Internet: .secure TLD floated as bad-guy-free zone (Ars Technica) Posted Jun 1, 2012 0:35 UTC (Fri) by Baylink (subscriber, #755) [Link]
That is, nearly word for word, what I've been saying since at *least* the era when Chris Ambler's ioDesign was getting effed over for the .web registry; in fact, I'm pretty sure I put this concept in my NTIA DOC comments on the gTLD expansion...
|
|||||||||||||