Unique Domains

[anothergeek]

Hi

Check out http://www.dotworlds.net

This site does all types of domains from .US to .sexy.
At the moment u can get three domains for FREE
.cool,.sexy and .geek are FREE.
All domains come with unlimited email adresses.

It only takes two minutes to set it up so why not have a go. :-D

[owen]

Not only that, but your domain names will not resolve globally on the Internet. Don't buy these "alternative root" domain names, unless you like snake oil.

[kind]

thanks

[anothergeek]

when i type in those domains it works normally

the only thing u need to do is upgrade the browser.

[jeffhuang]

thx anyway

[owen]

when i type in those domains it works normally

the only thing u need to do is upgrade the browser.

You can't fool educated people. Especially ones that run ICANN accredited registrars for a living. You may as well stop trying here. "upgrade the browser", give me a break. More like add a hack to the browser to make unsanctioned TLD's resolve.

Buy these TLD's and don't expect anyone else in the world to be able to get to your website without the browser hack, which will be very few people indeed.

If they are so convenient and great, why don't you run your business from one of those TLD's instead of a .NET domain name? Probably because NO ONE would ever see your website.

Do your own research:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

Read there real professional press releases and then maybe try this search:

http://www.google.com/search?num=100...am&btnG=Search

[Banned: DNnic]

Not only that, but your domain names will not resolve globally on the Internet. Don't buy these "alternative root" domain names, unless you like snake oil.

Thanks -

[anothergeek]

You can't fool educated people.

maybe you can as the link you give http://www.google.com/search?num=10...cam&btnG=Search is clearly written by some loony who is too scared to sign his/her name for fear of being prosecuted - but relies on the gullable/ask no questions mob to believe anything thats placed in front of them
]
I checked the other googles (uk/france/australia/italy) and the postings you refer to have already been thrown off - i am told that google USA abides by 5th amendment and it will keep all postings even those anonymous/libellous or otherwise unless and until a USA court of law orders otherwise.

Clearly to sue the authors of libelous postings - dotworlds, citibank, toyota or anyone else who happes to be a target of some brain dead individual is somewhat difficult if such postings remain unsigned

by the way -if you read ICANNs own statements, they have already said there is nothing wrong with alternative roots. I think this will be the way forward - obviously you do not

regards

[owen]

There may be nothing inherently "wrong" with alternative roots. ICANN has never said that there is nothing wrong with alternative root TLD's. To the contrary they have said quite the opposite.

Here is a link to ICANN and their discussions involving alternative root DNS:

http://www.icann.org/stockholm/unique-root-draft.htm

One interesting quote from the obove link:

"One corollary is that with current architectures and under current policy, ICANN cannot support the concept of multiple roots except within an experimental framework, where experimentation is carefully defined."

I believe they are a bad idea from both a technical and a consumer point of view. Here are some reasons:

1) There needs to be a central controlling entity of allowed TLD's for obvious reasons. There cannot be conflicting TLD's and there has to be oversight.

2) Alternative root TLD operators can provide the same TLD's as other alternative root operators. For instance, dotworlds.net and adns.net both offer .USA domain names (among others) from competing alternative roots.

3) Consumers that are not tech savvy may not know the difference between an alternative root TLD and an ICANN sanctioned TLD. They will be unaware that their domain names are unresolvable for a vast majority of Internet users.

4) Alternative root TLD's do not have to follow any rules or regulations put in place by the Internet governing bodies (this may be a good thing, but I doubt it).

5) DNS itself was designed to have only one root.

6) ICANN can sanction a TLD currently being used by an alternative root TLD provider, creating a conflict. For instance, .BIZ.

In my professional opinion, I believe that the only purpose an alternative root TLD can serve is as a novelty.

Here is some good information provided by, arguably, the largest alternative root operators:

http://www.adns.net/about_alternative_domains.html

Here are some google links so that others can research for themselves:

http://www.google.com/search?domains...G.x=0&btnG.y=0
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search

Perhaps IETF says it better than I:

"The Internet currently operates using a tree-structured name space known as the DNS.
Of necessity, such a name space must have a single, authoritative root. Moving to a model that
would not require such a single, authoritative root would require replacing the present,
working DNS with some other system.
Such a replacement would require the development of a new naming paradigm, as well as the
protocols and software to implement it. Developing and deploying such replacement protocols
would take years, and would have enormous potential for disruption of the Internet.
IETF does not see any technical benefit in such an effort."

[Rocket2Uranus]

This is a worthwhile topic for discussion. I would just like to remind everyone to keep it civil!

Party on

[anothergeek]

yes a very interesting response - thank you - but I wonder (technically speaking) did icann break the spirit of its own code (or maybe its own rules) by offering a tld (.biz) that was already in existence - your thoughts appreciated

also - dotworlds gives spam-free email addresses with their domains, I think these are totally unspammable by commercial mailers. Surely this has a lot of use

[David G]

This is a worthwhile topic for discussion. I would just like to remind everyone to keep it civil! Party on

Since there are several members here trying to sell 3rd level sub-domains to dnf members it can easily result in some newbie's buying them without realizing sub-domains are not really fully controlled or technically owned by the buyer (as far as ICANN and standard Whois is concerned), and really have no true value, IMO. Plus they would be worthless if the seller goes out of business, of course.

Any one of us could offer sub-domains for sale based on the domains we already own. All we would need is a sales/reg contract and setup the sub-domain on our server, hmmmmm, it is surprising more domainers are not trying to do so?

I think discussion about sub-domains being 'sold' is definately something which should be well covered in DNF. In fact, I would go so far as to say a special forum should be used for these so as to not get them confused with regular domains for sale.

P.S. Regarding dot-biz. No, ICANN did not offer a tld already established as that .biz was not an ICANN recognized or sanctioned tld.

[owen]

yes a very interesting response - thank you - but I wonder (technically speaking) did icann break the spirit of its own code (or maybe its own rules) by offering a tld (.biz) that was already in existence - your thoughts appreciated

also - dotworlds gives spam-free email addresses with their domains, I think these are totally unspammable by commercial mailers. Surely this has a lot of use

First, let me say that I am not a rabid supporter of ICANN or some of there policies. I do support DNS the way that it was proposed and I do support following standards put in place. One of these standards in DNS is the use of a single root. DNS may not be the perfect solution, but it was a good solution for the problem at the time that it was created. Much like Verisign's ill conceived Site Finder service, breaking or trying to hack the fundamental standards of the Internet is confusing to consumers, technically wrong, and potentially disruptive. What ICANN did in the .BIZ situation may not have been "right" according to the alternative root operators that were running .BIZ, but as far as ICANN was concerned I do not think the best interest of the alternative root operator was an item they considered when choosing new gTLD's. There is no ICANN code or rules about allowing alternative root TLD's to operate. Their purpose is for the stability and betterment of the Internet (how well they do this is left open to debate). There are also no code or rules about alternative root operators creating competing TLD's with other alternative root operators. I think the lack of codes or rules underscores the necessity for a central root.

As for spam free email addresses, the reason they are spam free is because there is no reason for a spammer to spam those email addresses. There is not enough volume of dotworlds email addresses for it to make financial sense to a spammer. If there was ever a large enough number of email addresses worth spamming, they would be just as susceptible to spam as any other email address. Not to mention that those email addresses are not even deliverable by any standard email delivering software without some sort of modifications being made and users of those email addresses could not depend on any kind of reliable mail service between themselves and other Internet users.

RealNames,

I think the selling of sub domains for ICANN sanctioned TLD's is an entirely different thing then selling non ICANN TLD's. Domains are meant to have sub domains and sub domains are meant to be delegated to other users. The users of sub domains of ICANN sanctioned TLD's don't have to worry about their domain names not being in the root name servers as long as the operator of the domain does their part in properly administrating DNS for that domain. Selling sub domains also does not require fragmenting or violating the DNS standards. An owner of a sub domain also does not need to worry about conflicting sub domains. I think it is definitely worthy of discussion and sub domains definitely do not belong in the same category as the domains offered from the registries, but I think they are a valid product and a good one if offered by a reputable and competent person/company. I think if one were to sell sub domains they should be very frank and up front about what exactly a consumer is buying.

[anothergeek]

As for spam free email addresses, the reason they are spam free is because there is no reason for a spammer to spam those email addresses. There is not enough volume of dotworlds email addresses for it to make financial sense to a spammer. If there was ever a large enough number of email addresses worth spamming, they would be just as susceptible to spam as any other email address. Not to mention that those email addresses are not even deliverable by any standard email delivering software without some sort of modifications being made and users of those email addresses could not depend on any kind of reliable mail service between themselves and other Internet users.

This above is just not the case and sorry, is completely incorrect - they are spam free because a commercial email cannot reach these addresses EVEN if they know exactly what they are......

For Example: try sending me an email to me at my address what@another.geek and see what happens. I can send to all other dotworlds domains and I can also send to the outside world (ie .coms, .nets) but bulk mailers cant access these addresses.

As for commercially viable for spammers - that will never be so. Still, with billions more addresses to find, spamming also becomes a mathematical impossibility - but based on the above, that point is academic.

[owen]

This above is just not the case and sorry, is completely incorrect - they are spam free because a commercial email cannot reach these addresses EVEN if they know exactly what they are......

For Example: try sending me an email to me at my address what@another.geek and see what happens. I can send to all other dotworlds domains and I can also send to the outside world (ie .coms, .nets) but bulk mailers cant access these addresses.

As for commercially viable for spammers - that will never be so. Still, with billions more addresses to find, spamming also becomes a mathematical impossibility - but based on the above, that point is academic.

Actually, what I said is exactly correct and what you just said mirrors the point I was making. You basically said I was wrong and then said the same thing I said using different words. I know exactly what will happen if I send an email to an email address with a domain not in the root zone, it will get bounced back to me by the MTA I use to deliver mail. Here is an excerpt from my above post that I think sums that up:

"Not to mention that those email addresses are not even deliverable by any standard email delivering software without some sort of modifications being made and users of those email addresses could not depend on any kind of reliable mail service between themselves and other Internet users."

Alternative root email addresses are no different than alternative root domain names in that they are not dependable as a viable means of communication on the Internet. Spammers cannot reach those email addresses for the same reasons regular Internet users cannot reach the alternative root domain names. Since the email addresses in question are tied to the alternative root domain, this should be obvious.

[arindra]

quite a interesting discussion in here !