Could it be the ultimate in internet vanity addresses? A British company thinks the "ultra wealthy" will be prepared to splash out a cool $500,000 (£317k) to get their own top-level family domain name. CentralNic has launched dotFamilyName, a service it says is designed to help "high net worth families" apply to ICANN next year …
Smells like.. blackmail!
Hey, you'd better pony up $500k or some gobshite in a non-extradition country will buy your name as a domain and turn it into a porn site, rendering your reputation in tatters!
Surely if Paris applied for her own domain name, the hotel franchising company formerly owned by her grandfather and now owned by Blackstone Private Equity would object on trademark grounds?
a Duke or a Council or a Palace
What we need is for the people who run the DNS servers to start just ignoring these people who sell "names". Then we'll see that their business is about as well-founded as the companies that sell land on the moon or name stars for you.
Wait a moment
are you saying my retirement home on the Sea of Tranquility may not be on the up and up?
Are the company names being sold by that lot in the US being added to DNS? Serious question.
And still nobody seems to be addressing how the DNS is supposed to cope when we have millions of domains at the same level as the standard TLDs. The hierarchy that DNS relies on is gone, hence it does not scale. Zone transfers will grow exponentially
Have I missed something...
... why don't these super rich families cough up 185,000 for a name rather than half a mil for someone else to do it..... ah sorry I forgot to invoke the 'more money than sense' rule.
Why bother with the dots at all?
Why not an individual TLD for everybody and everything on the planet? I'm sure the DNS root servers are up to it, eh? I mean, having a logical hierarchy to spread the load is so passé nowadays, isn't it? If it should happen to melt down, ICANN can always offload the job to some Google or Amazon cloud, can't they? Nothing to worry about.
Meanwhile, I wonder if someone at the ITU is watching this and wondering if they can maybe get away with reorganising the international dialling schemes in order to sell rich people 4 or 5 digit phone numbers at $500k a pop.
And then charge all the kids.
This whole any TLD idea is stupid. It was clearly thought up by marketing rather than technical types.
Whilst I hate the idea...
Say you register .smith and then resell john.smith, bob.smith, andrew.smith, elizabeth.smith etc.?
You only need 500 at 1K USD, so you license each name on a yearly basis.
These new domains are really going to screw things up though.
Suppose I sold fuel for blast furnaces
And therefore bought .coke.
Simple, you'd most likely have a lot of interest from PC Plod & co, plus a lot of inquiries for prices.
It's lucky surnames are unique
Oh wait. What happens when two famous people have the same name?
The lawyers get rich of course. Simples
So, $500k will get me, Gannon.Dick, through firewalls ? I think not.
ICANN has laid out quite strict rules for this first (and possibly last) round of new TLDs. Applications are restricted to significant communities and large corporation conglomerates. Attempts to install personal/vanity TLDs will be rejected, leaving the applicants with the loss of any down-payment , and if they somehow manage to get through the first triage, likely the high cost of re-evaluation as their claims are disputed.
There's also a non-trivial amount of "personal" data to pass to ICANN, and some will be made public, which will make many people wary. I doubt that some of those "glamorous" personalities will hand over a bunch of their their criminal and financial records, which is mandatory for the managing entities of applicants.
I for one am eagerly waiting for publication of the applications around the end of next April.
Don't act surprised
It wasn't exactly hard to see this one coming. Yes, just go flatspace, because sod it, it doesn't matter a whit any longer. Even the price is no longer justifyable. Just say "yes" to anyone who asks for any reason and charge five bucks a year. It covers .com SLDs, so why not TLDs? You sayin' your software ain't up to it? You sayin' that?
It's "TLD" not "extension", Kevin. I do expect anyone working for a tech rag to know that much. And yes, I know that a lot of tech rags do employ people who keep using wildly inappropriate terms for well-defined techie things. And that when the terminology in many cases --including this one-- is so simple. You sayin' you can't do any better? You sayin' that?
Nothing says "wanker"...
... better than a personalised domain name!
...except possibly the .wanker TLD
You have a choice
There is no reason to place DNS trust in the root 13 , any service can provide DNS trust and more importantly TLD for a lot less money. If you don't like it then stick to the authority file that came with your software.
Bandwidth doesn't cost what it used to, TB cost $10 a month not $10,000 like it used to.
It's just down to operating systems, or nowadays browsers as to whom you trust.
This is all about making money
and nothing to do with good structure of the Internet. The naming system has got to be something that will survive & grow over the centuries to come. Instead some get-rich-quick Del boys have dreamed up a scheme for a fast buck. I would be much happier if they registered one top level domain & put all of these under there ... something like .plonker would seem about right.
Indeed, this has dot bubble written all over it. Clearly the money printing opportunities are thinning in today's "knowledge economies".
What are ICANN smoking?
Does that TLD go to a family or a clothing store?
As asked earlier, paris.hilton would have 2 contenders both with equal claim
What about Mr Net? He wants his surname TLD.
If only there was a TLD relating to people's names... a .name, as it were.
You mean I didn't have to change my name to Michael DotCom after all?
Email addresses are still firstname.lastname@example.org - so Paris Hilton would be: email@example.com - think I would rather: firstname.lastname@example.org
"Nothing says "wanker"... better than a personalised domain name!"
Nothing says *cheap* wanker better than: email@example.com
Think I would rather be firstname.lastname@example.org than email@example.com
Right my name is John Sex - so I wan't .sex