Friday, June 24, 2011


The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is increasing the number of possible endings for website addresses. There are currently 22 generic domains, including .com, .gov and .edu, but with the new rules, anything can go after the dot—for a price. The initial cost of one of these new top level domains is $185,000, plus an annual fee of $25,000 to maintain the domain. Wired.com writer Ryan Singel explains the significance of the change.

Comments [3]

Oh, and funny thing, Twitter actually identifies us by name in a subhead but, unlike with other tweeters, Washington Journal hosts identify my tweets only by my name. They id American_Hero, boring_file_clerk, etc. with their handles but MilgramsMistake they won't acknowledge.

Jun. 30 2011 01:05 PM

How about this whole idea sucks! That is meant not just to apply to the domain name scam money grab but this whole new website & On the Media community deal. It sucks! And why should I feel bad saying that to you when Mike says "Pissed" and I think, "Funny, if I heard Bob say it, I wouldn't be offended," but was!

Why does Rob Funk have that as a user name? Did it not specify no breaks in user names, thus demand anonymity? If I'm wrong, could my mistake be corrected. I only used this on Twitter 'cause forced. Prefer no anonymity, especially mine.

Jun. 29 2011 10:45 PM
Rob Funk from Columbus, OH

I realize that any domain expert is bound to be disappointed by mainstream coverage of their domain, but this was even more disappointing than the brief Morning Edition coverage. This is the sort of thing that On The Media is usually good at delving into, and you totally dropped the ball here.

So the choice here is between "it's really great and exciting" and "meh"? How about at least a nod to those of us who think this is a really bad idea? The detractors, by the way, include former ICANN director Esther Dyson, who calls it a waste of money.

This is going to make it more difficult to recognize a domain name, and will make it more expensive for anyone trying to control their own online presence.

The only people who are clamoring for this are domain registrars, who stand to make lots of money from defensive registration (e.g. Facebook registering "facebook.sucks" to prevent someone else from doing so), and the current ICANN administration. (It's also notable that similar arguments hold against the recent approval of the ".xxx" top-level domain.)

Jun. 29 2011 09:45 AM

Leave a Comment

Email addresses are required but never displayed.