New TLDs

[sheprd]

Seems Namecheap is going to release many new TLDs soon

[janusz]

Including .online, .music, .inc and even .pizza

Full list

[B4its2L8]

I wonder if the FM team is interested in expanding their already humongous list of domains by purchasing some appropriate ones. "fast.mail" comes to mind.

[David]

Originally Posted by B4its2L8

I wonder if the FM team is interested in expanding their already humongous list of domains by purchasing some appropriate ones. "fast.mail" comes to mind.

You should order it yourself, B4its2L8

[n5bb]

A wide range of domain resellers are allowing "preorders" of these new proposed top level domains (such as .mail). But the .mail domain may be quite a bit different. Spamhaus suggested that it be used in conjunction with existing domains. It now appears that a subsidiary of Google may end up purchasing .mail, and they might allow others to participate in a manner related to that Spamhaus suggestion. Or at least that's how it appears to me.

Bill

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by janusz

Including .online, .music, .inc and even .pizza

How about ".cool", ".phat", and ".hiphop"?

".sextoys"? ".startrek"? ".internet-anonymity-redirectors"?

".tennis", anyone?

Just to be clear, my point is that, at some point, TLD proliferation is absurd.

[DrStrabismus]

Originally Posted by hans2010

Just to be clear, my point is that, at some point, TLD proliferation is absurd.

Why is it absurd?

[David]

Originally Posted by n5bb

It now appears that a subsidiary of Google may end up purchasing .mail, and they might allow others to participate in a manner related to that Spamhaus suggestion.

This seems a mite unfair to me...... It's all about who you know, I guess.

[n5bb]

Originally Posted by David

This seems a mite unfair to me...... It's all about who you know, I guess.

Or how many gadzillion bucks you have available due to your high valuation.

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by DrStrabismus

Why is it absurd?

I'm assuming you'd agree that there is some extreme at which TLD proliferation would become absurd. Of course, where that point lies is subjective. What would that point be for you?

[n5bb]

Originally Posted by hans2010

I'm assuming you'd agree that there is some extreme at which TLD proliferation would become absurd. Of course, where that point lies is subjective.

I think the point is why any specific number of TLD names should be considered "absurd". These are just part of a system which allows us to categorize Internet information. This process has been in place in libraries for over 135 years. Look at the many categories available in the Dewey Decimal Classification system. For example, there are many technology classifications.

I think it's useful to read about the history of top-level domains. There are various arguments for and against the proposed new generic top-level domains. But I think most of these arguments are related to economic considerations (such as Google and Amazon purchasing certain top-level domains for only their use, freezing out smaller companies), not to any reasons to limit the number of such domains. There are names for each country, so the top-level domain list is already very lengthy.

Bill

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by n5bb

I think the point is why any specific number of TLD names should be considered "absurd".

So it sounds like your position is basically (to put it mathematically) that "there is no positive integer N, such that N is larger than the current number of TLDs, and such that having N TLDs would be absurd." Is that your position? How about if N were equal to the number of IP addresses in existence? (That was, in some sense, the situation before DNS was invented, since the namespace was flat, and hence each hostname was, in effect, a top-level object... and if they didn't think having that many top-level objects was a good idea then, then it probably isn't a good idea ever).

If the above scenario is not absurd (and I'm pretty sure it is), then how about if N equals one googolplex? I'm pretty sure that would be absurd, and I'd like to assume you'd agree! I could be wrong! (Actually, this conversation is becoming absurd... but your comment seems to imply the mathematically-stated position above... just sayin'.)

Getting back to reality, do you think that any text string that anyone wants to see become a TLD should immediately be created as such? That would be a way (that is operationally feasible) to test the question of whether TLD proliferation, at some point or in some scenario, could wind up becoming absurd. Of course, that's not current Internet policy, but we do see that things change over time, and so it could happen, if enough people agreed to it. I would not.

[FredOnline]

Originally Posted by hans2010

Actually, this conversation is becoming absurd

It sure is.

[hans2010]

Originally Posted by FredOnline

It sure is.

I'm glad you agree. You can read more about why TLD proliferation is becoming absurd in this article by Esther Dyson (founding chairperson of ICANN).

[DrStrabismus]

Originally Posted by hans2010

I'm assuming you'd agree that there is some extreme at which TLD proliferation would become absurd. Of course, where that point lies is subjective. What would that point be for you?

You say that it's absurd, but you haven't actually said why you regard it as absurd.

I do do find some of the things that Esther Dyson says to be pretty silly, for example:

Of course, if I am right, the DNS will lose its value over time, and most people will get to Web sites and content via social networks and apps, or via Google (or whatever supersedes it in the competitive marketplace).

There's no mention in the article of why ordinary people are going to be put-off using domains to reach sites. Personally, I think I'll be able to cope with typing amazon instead of amazon.com YMMV.