Hacker News Reader

Comment by NameNickHN | Hacker News Reader

This is not surprising but I fail to see the downside. The internet is complex already. The new top level domains won't add much to that.

  I think that there was no end-user demand whatsoever for more so-called DNS extensions, [or] global generic top-level domains (gTLDs)," he said.

I run a lot of websites and it was a pain to find good domain names in the last 15 years. With all the new TLDs that problem is completely gone.

There will be a time when the multitude of TLDs won't bother anyone. Limiting TLDs doesn't add security. Educating people about the dangers of the internet does.

View on HN

You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using.

I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000.

I'm of the view if you're sitting on names that you're keeping around exclusively because you think they could net you a windfall in the future then you're a bit of an internet twat.

The high price was an excellent sign that they were overly scarce (for an otherwise limitless resource), and that more were needed.

I think the new gTLDs are great. Most of them aren't exorbitantly expensive, and generally speaking they free you up to have an address on the big wild internet that makes way more sense than the contrived naming conventions we resorted to using in the past (eg: get[???].com, [???]app.com, both of which I can think of prime, famous examples in real world use). Is [???].app really better? Yeah, probably.

Except those will get eaten up rapidly as well. Is [???].horse better than get[???].com?

What do you propose as the alternative? Should the first person who wants to use the domain get it? What if their project isn't used much or they stop maintaining it? What if it really sucks? What if they have plans to use it but they haven't done anything for years?

There isn't a good alternative to the way it currently works. Allowing domain owners to sell their domains results in domains going to those companies that are successful enough to afford them.

> I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000.

Some domains that appear unused are actually being used.

I've got a very minimal, largely neglected, web presence on my domain, but would not even consider selling it unless the price was very very high.

That's because I am using it--for email. If I were to sell my domain I'd have to update my information with thousands of sites, companies, and individuals.

That's not something I'd be willing to undertake lightly. Any place that has my email that I forget to update is a place where my account could be easily hijacked.

>> You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using.

I think you're confused, and probably mean "give up the domains" they're not using. Not "give up the TLDs".

This is not a viable option, though. Even though someone may think they're not using the domain, there's a good chance they could be using it (like using it for email even though the a record doesn't resolve to anything) or they could be using it as an investment.

Asking someone to give up a domain that "they're not using" is like asking someone to give up the vacant lot they're not using. It's real estate.

I'm not confused but you're right, I did mean to type domains rather than TLDs.

Anyways, I'm actually arguably in favour or a Land Value Tax. Land is a super fininte resource and holding onto it for no reason other than as an investment screws over anybody who isn't there first. This is great if you have land, for whatever reason, but not to great if you grow up poor and want to live anywhere near your place of work in a place like London where the property market is completely broken.

The domains landscape is similar, except that it is indeed easier to create new TLDs than manage the mess of domain speculation.

I have a few nice names I get regular emails about. I have one such name where the guys found where I worked and figured out how to reach my office phone. It was a bit annoying, but I told them I had plans for the domain.

You could say the same about holding on to property you're not using, but people resist the obvious solution: higher property tax, or in the case of domains higher yearly fees.

Yeah a bit of pain, but at least you prevent some confusions, like "is it fr.microsoft or microsoft.software?" What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service?

What if you're a bank and somebody gets a TLD like "yourbank.bank" with valid SSL and starts fishing people from yourbank.com?

What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service?

What happens now? It's not like there's a single domain already - there are dozens, if not hundreds of TLDs.

The realistic answer is: the new TLDs don't matter, even just with .com, it's easy to get a similar enough domain that many people will fall for.

I remember the good old steamcornmutiny.

It is a shakedown. Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD. Doesn't it mean anything that registrars were the only people asking for this?

Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD.

Either that, or they'll finally realize it's futile and stop that nonsense.

Exactly. If I run a business at `10 High Street` I don't set up shop in every town and city on every road called `High Street`. If people go to number 10 in their town, they'll search again if they can't find my shop if that's what they're looking for.

The biggest problem is phishing, bad actors send emails from the slightly off TLD.

Our IT guy has actually just blackholed all mail from any of the new TLDs. I don't know exactly what he did, but I suspect it's just a whitelist containing "TLDs from before the Great TLD Expansion." I don't think I've ever seen a legitimate website from one of the new TLDs, and to be honest I'm still suspicious of most country code TLDs.

The new TLDs are a massive problem disguised as a solution in search of a problem.

They change almost nothing. We had many TLDs before, we have many TLDs now. Any system not designed to be resilient to many TLDs and multiple ways of reaching an IP is the real problem.

There's some spectrum of legitimacy, perhaps unfair. When I see ".com" I know it's a website. When I see ".co" I think I'm being phished. When I see ".software" I'm confused. When I see ".ninja" I wonder what the heck is going on.

Who benefits?

You, by forcing you to question your prejudices regarding TLDs?

Well, attorneys are likely a bit paranoid about the requirement to protect their trademark against abuse or lose it.

There is absolutely no reason for a company to "have to buy them on hundreds of TLDs". That's absurd. But this is why we have the URDP system in place. If someone does actually purchase a domain that includes your trademark, you have options like sending a C&D or using the UDRP system.

Using the udrp system is expensive, it's less expensive to just give in and lease example.bike and example.sexy and example.ninja, rather than let someone else get it and fight them over it when it happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com