I try not to flood Nanog with articles, but I thought I'd ask for some opinions on this. For the moment, most browsers treat a single line with no tld as a search request, why have a tld-less tld? Would this not open the door for others to claim they need a word as a tld (cisco = http://routers or Al Gore http://internets), and how would that be handled by most modern(ish) browsers and devices?
http://m.gizmodo.com/5994354/google-wants-to-create-a-dotless-domain-called-search
I'm hoping google is doing this for m2m and not human interaction, but I could be wrong.
I just envision years of re-educating grandparents and less technical users and I'm dreading it.
Cheers,
Joshua
The whole custom TLD thing is just a truly awful, awful idea.
Oliver
AOL 'go' words were cool the firs time around - now with the interwebs!
Agreed; but it would seem that unstoppable forces have been set into
motion by ICANN, to cause it to happen, regardless of whether it is
beneficial to the community, and regardless of any objections from the
public...
Yes... let a single organization own http://search
No intrinsic bias here... no unfairness, for a single organization to
hold that name...
Right...
Agreed; but it would seem that unstoppable forces have been set into
motion by ICANN, to cause it to happen, regardless of whether it is
beneficial to the community, and regardless of any objections from the
public...Yes... let a single organization own http://search
No intrinsic bias here... no unfairness, for a single organization to
hold that name...Right...
Still riding high from their success with .mobi (disclaimer, I worked for Nokia at the time, it was a bad idea then, it's still a bad idea)...
It's entirely plausible that you're overselling the value of a gtld a bit.
Whether gTLD expansion is a good or bad idea (protip: good) is orthogonal
to whether anyone who has such a gTLD should be permitted to put A records
in the DNS for the TLD proper (protip: bad, and they'd find
out the hard way, since most things would break).
Cheers,
-- jra