Note: links to PDF
[icann.org...]
As per usual the problem seems to be with windows/internet explorer. All other operating systems that I know use different web browsers to local file browsers, so you would not have the problem of wanting file://myfile.pdf but actually getting [myfile.pdf...]
Their conclusion is that they will not use this as an excuse to deny a TLD, but they then go on to say that maybe we have enough TLD's at the moment (I think we do). So its unlikely we will actually see these TLD's.
Also they need to crack down on fake registrations used by spammers - low cost and ability to provide false information allows a lot of bad stuff to happen.
That's the problems ICANN should be thinking about, not worthless ideas about new TLDs that don't change anything apart from generating extra revenue for registars.
:/
Brilliant. You can have it, and I'll take index.htm, index.php and index.asp
index.htm, index.php and index.asp
I'm also calling "dibs" on photo.jpg, tip.jar, ding.bat, quack.doc, and mart.ini
all hypothetical yet fun to dream
If certain companies what to have a .exe TLD, why not have them create it as a sub domain against their existing TLDs(e.g., exe.mydomain.tld) rather than having it in its own TLD? It worked for such things as FTP and WWW.
The ICANN documents speaks to needing to address "TLD strings that might impact stability." It looks like they looked exclusively at the DNS system, however, stability can take a variety of forms.
IMHO, creating confusion through millions of TLDs is not going to make the Internet more stable and attempting to generate huge quantities of TLDs should be avoided like the plague, not because it can't be done at a technical level, but rather because it rather creates human issues that are easy and obvious to forsee.
-Commerce
extensions could cause technical problems when attempting to be resolved in their particular programs. Responses to these inquiries have indicated that if there were problems resulting from the addition of TLD labels coinciding with common file extensions, they would be problems of user confusion rather than breakage in the DNS.
But the impact of that user confusion shouldn't be underestinated.
IMHO, creating confusion through millions of TLDs is not going to make the Internet more stable and attempting to generate huge quantities of TLDs should be avoided like the plague, not because it can't be done at a technical level, but rather because it rather creates human issues that are easy and obvious to forsee.
And guess who gets to pay for it? For Brands & Businesses $10 per gTLD a year is cheaper than a UDRP or a Lawsuit.
attempting to generate huge quantities of TLDs should be avoided like the plague, not because it can't be done at a technical level, but rather because it rather creates human issues
As for file extensions, I don't see anything good coming out of it.
OK, PDF, on the other hand is much universal acronym, so I might let them go with it. But then, what would be the use for it ?
And I'm also *very* dubious about the security implications. Sure, .com is also an executable extension in the DOS world, and there actually were malwares ending with .com masquerading as an URL.
If such a .exe TLD goes live, it's bound to happen at a much broader level. ("Hey, sure, that .exe in my spammy email is not an executable, it's just that super duper site you HAVE to see for yourself").
Bad idea in my opinion.
In a world where many web users can easily be tricked into clicking on wwwyourbank.com this would be phishers' and drive-by downloaders' heaven.
Here's your latest Word doc. We're going to be working on the timetable at the end of today, so it's best if you open it and cast your eye over it now:yourdoc.doc
Mary had a LittleLamb.
We'll make for Weathertop, said Frodo.
Adding a fleet of new TLDs will take more power away from dot com. Domainers who have been hoarding their precious dot-coms would naturally get irate if the market gets flooded with unlimited "mortgage.xyz" opportunities. It reduces the rarity and value of their assets. I don't think that's a bad thing. Although if I owned a kajillion$ portfolio of single-word-noun.com names, I'd probably take the opposite position.
Phishing? I don't believe it would be affected like you say. If there were many many more TLDs, URLs would develop an artificial air of ambiguity, the way a GUID does. Introduce chaos or ambiguity, and you remove the expectation of order and definition. Remove expectations, and participants exercise more caution. More cautious public will be less vulnerable to phishing scams. Denmark learned this [guardian.co.uk]
Even a whiff of "less order" would cause massive personality conflicts in the W3C. It'll become an emotional argument.
Picking a random Tarot: "The Tower, reversed"
suggests that you are unwilling, or unable, to make the important changes necessary to help you achieve your goals and deeper personal needs. This is a card of oppression, and the following of old habits. You may be stuck in a rut, and unable to make worthwhile changes. The card also suggests that you are in an unhappy situation. In a broader sense, this card warns of the dangers of living by old and outdated attitudes.
Here's your latest Word doc. We're going to be working on the timetable at the end of today, so it's best if you open it and cast your eye over it now:yourdoc.doc
How is that any different from this?
Here's your latest Word doc. We're going to be working on the timetable at the end of today, so it's best if you open it and cast your eye over it now:<a href="nastysite.com/yourdoc.doc>yourdoc.doc</a>
Your example wouldn't by automatically hyperlinked unless you put [yourdoc.doc....]
This is exactly the same situation we have now and all the warnings about opening things from the internet and disabling macros does not work now anyway.
All they were discussing was should they disallow common file extensions in TLD's just because they are a common file extension? The answer was no, but it is unlikely we will ever see .doc, .exe or .mp3 extensions.
Adding a fleet of new TLDs will take more power
away from dot com
The most likely effect is exactly the opposite :) It will strengthen .com. Why? because TLDs need usage.
For example if we had 5 new competing TLDs for the automotive industry
.car
.auto
.garage
.dealership
.dealer
Do you think we would end up with
bmw.car mercedes.auto ford.garage gm.dealership toyota.dealer
Nope! The end result is bmw.com mercedes.com ford.com gm.com & toyota.com
Nobody ever got sacked for branding on .com
Take the HD DVD & Blue Ray battle - Most people are not buying nobody wants to buy into a looser. Most people want to follow at a safe distance behind the pioneers.
