Note: links to PDF
[icann.org...]
How is that any different from this?
You're right, it's not any different, so perhaps my example was too simplistic. Fair point.
That said, I can't think of many (any?) ways a .doc TLD enables people to do legitimate things they can't already do anyway and without brainstorming exactly how, I hazard it would give phishers an extra tool in their box to trick people into clicking through to dodgy sites.
Bear in mind there is a whole spectrum of phishing-aware email users from those who get phished every time to those who never get phished.
Those with a little awareness who run their mouse over <a href="http://www.dodgysite.com/">YourSchedule.doc</a> will see the real address appear in the address bar and know enough, perhaps to avoid clicking.
Those who run their mouse over <a href="http://www.YourSchedule.doc/">YourSchedule.doc</a> will see an exact match, suspect nothing and click.
Thus phishing with a .doc TLD results in a higher CTR, thus phishing becomes more profitable.
Yes, I'm only speculating and doing so somewhat pessimistically. But this is the downside of filename-style TLDs. What is the upside?
Domain name system needs urgent solution to people who buy literally millions of domains only to use them as PPC ads frontpages
This would be a much better use of their time along with working together with the international community to coordinate a more civilized internet.
There isn't a problem with emails that say click this link, because it would be easier to just email them the actual file, rather than send them to a website with a similar name. If they are going to click on a link from 'Microsoft' telling them to update their computer then I doubt the TLD would make any difference.
The problem that ICANN were looking at was if someone typed document.doc into explorer and they were expecting file:///document.doc, would that be a problem. They came to the conclusion that it wasn't a problem.
If Indonesia decided tomorrow that they wanted .ini, would that be a real problem? How would the problem be different if they wanted .ind? (I realise it is .id - this is just an example).
The problem that ICANN were looking at was if someone typed document.doc into explorer and they were expecting file:///document.doc, would that be a problem. They came to the conclusion that it wasn't a problem.
If you create a document called "widgets.doc" and save it on the desktop, explorer will open it if you type widgets.doc into the address bar.
As it stands now, anything that ends with '.exe' is considered executable. Anything that has the potential the blur the difference between an executable file and a non-executable file is not the smartest thing to do, IMHO.
.pl is also the perl file extension, do all Polish people think their websites are written in perl? .tk is the TLD for Tokelau but it is nothing to do with the Tk scripting language. Likewise Paraguay has nothing to do with Python. All of these are executable formats.
They are not considering these domains at all, they are looking at the technical impact (which is zero).
With all of the available possibilities for a TLD, I don't think ICANN should be considering these.
From what I read at the URL cited in the first post, they're not proposing to implement those TLD's but trying to determine if they would "break" DNS.
oops - mikedee just said that
Filename extensions as tld's would be as big a failure as .name ... except for those who figure out ways to exploit them.
[edited by: MamaDawg at 10:31 pm (utc) on Feb. 16, 2008]
why test if they don't plan to?
The most likely effect is exactly the opposite It will strengthen .com
yes I see your point... after all, suburban expansion hasn't decreased real estate value on 5th Avenue.
But opening up more TLDs does create opportunities for branding into non-com domains. Interesting things would happen. I for one am in favour of TLDs EXE, BMP, JPG, MP3 etc., and would love to see TLDs become far more plentiful.
