<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article10_01_16_0824215</id>
	<title>Hundreds of New TLDs Coming &mdash; Question Is When</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1263646380000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>netbuzz writes <i>"A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains <a href="http://www.networkworld.com/news/2010/011510-icann-domain.html?hpg1=bn">could be headed for the fast track to implementation</a> or something more akin to the back burner, depending on what ICANN makes of public comments due to close at the end of this month. At most immediate issue is whether the process of granting these new TLDs will feature a pre-registration process that proponents say is necessary to accurately gauge the depth of interest and skeptics fear as moving too fast too soon. Says one critic: 'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.'"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>netbuzz writes " A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains could be headed for the fast track to implementation or something more akin to the back burner , depending on what ICANN makes of public comments due to close at the end of this month .
At most immediate issue is whether the process of granting these new TLDs will feature a pre-registration process that proponents say is necessary to accurately gauge the depth of interest and skeptics fear as moving too fast too soon .
Says one critic : 'In effect , it 's like ICANN saying we do n't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track , but we 're going to fire the starting gun anyway .
' "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>netbuzz writes "A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains could be headed for the fast track to implementation or something more akin to the back burner, depending on what ICANN makes of public comments due to close at the end of this month.
At most immediate issue is whether the process of granting these new TLDs will feature a pre-registration process that proponents say is necessary to accurately gauge the depth of interest and skeptics fear as moving too fast too soon.
Says one critic: 'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.
'"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790080</id>
	<title>No, the real question is:</title>
	<author>bdraschk</author>
	<datestamp>1263655020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>... why?</p><p>There is a group in the German captial that want's a TLD<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.berlin. I always wondered, what they would do with it. If i want to find Berlin's website now, i'd try berlin.de or www.berlin.de. What would the future web address be? www.berlin? How can i be sure i end up in my capital and not in Berlin, TX (i'm pretty sure there is one<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)</p><p>This just deepens our dependence on search engines.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>... why ? There is a group in the German captial that want 's a TLD .berlin .
I always wondered , what they would do with it .
If i want to find Berlin 's website now , i 'd try berlin.de or www.berlin.de .
What would the future web address be ?
www.berlin ? How can i be sure i end up in my capital and not in Berlin , TX ( i 'm pretty sure there is one : - ) This just deepens our dependence on search engines .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>... why?There is a group in the German captial that want's a TLD .berlin.
I always wondered, what they would do with it.
If i want to find Berlin's website now, i'd try berlin.de or www.berlin.de.
What would the future web address be?
www.berlin? How can i be sure i end up in my capital and not in Berlin, TX (i'm pretty sure there is one :-)This just deepens our dependence on search engines.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790342</id>
	<title>Re:Bluring the lines</title>
	<author>thogard</author>
	<datestamp>1263657900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I already block most new TLD in my DNS server by adding my own root zones for them.  Too many of the recent TLDs are just way too full of scammers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I already block most new TLD in my DNS server by adding my own root zones for them .
Too many of the recent TLDs are just way too full of scammers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I already block most new TLD in my DNS server by adding my own root zones for them.
Too many of the recent TLDs are just way too full of scammers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789938</id>
	<title>Re:fatboy slim be happy</title>
	<author>impaledsunset</author>
	<datestamp>1263653160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>h t t p colon slash slash slash dot slash dot dot dot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>h t t p colon slash slash slash dot slash dot dot dot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>h t t p colon slash slash slash dot slash dot dot dot</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789864</id>
	<title>Bonanza for the domain registories</title>
	<author>physburn</author>
	<datestamp>1263652200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>  There's been no big clamour for new top level domains most of us
have lived with the available ones for years. But licensing a load
more TLD gives domain registories a chance to sell a lot more
domains, many of them just extra names for existing sites. So
registories make a lot of cash.
<p>
---
</p><p>
<a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/blogs/Internet\%20Advertising/feed.html" title="feeddistiller.com">Internet Advertising</a> [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ <a href="http://www.feeddistiller.com/" title="feeddistiller.com">Feed Distiller</a> [feeddistiller.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There 's been no big clamour for new top level domains most of us have lived with the available ones for years .
But licensing a load more TLD gives domain registories a chance to sell a lot more domains , many of them just extra names for existing sites .
So registories make a lot of cash .
--- Internet Advertising [ feeddistiller.com ] Feed @ Feed Distiller [ feeddistiller.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  There's been no big clamour for new top level domains most of us
have lived with the available ones for years.
But licensing a load
more TLD gives domain registories a chance to sell a lot more
domains, many of them just extra names for existing sites.
So
registories make a lot of cash.
---

Internet Advertising [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793694</id>
	<title>Re:Bluring the lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263640860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait until it&rsquo;s</p><p>sport://sport@sport.sport.sport:sport/~sport/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait until it    ssport : //sport @ sport.sport.sport : sport/ ~ sport/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait until it’ssport://sport@sport.sport.sport:sport/~sport/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789886</id>
	<title>Cyber Squatters</title>
	<author>lalena</author>
	<datestamp>1263652680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Article list<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.food as an example of a TLD that someone might want to register.
<br>
What if they get rid of the cyber squatters that own food.net and food.org - but where's the profit in that.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Article list .food as an example of a TLD that someone might want to register .
What if they get rid of the cyber squatters that own food.net and food.org - but where 's the profit in that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Article list .food as an example of a TLD that someone might want to register.
What if they get rid of the cyber squatters that own food.net and food.org - but where's the profit in that.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30794406</id>
	<title>Further reducing ICANN's credibility?</title>
	<author>grantdh</author>
	<datestamp>1263645480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This could have a fascinating result:</p><p>1) Organisations sign up to host their own "so cool" root domain, expecting that lots of companies will be "forced" to register their key words in the new root domain</p><p>2) Companies finally wake up and say "WTF? We don't need this shit" and don't buy in</p><p>3) Lots of organisations who did #1 realise they're not going to be able to make enough to pay ICANN let alone cover their costs</p><p>4) Scumbuckets come in and start domain-squatting, setting up crap sites, etc</p><p>The above may well lead to:</p><p>5) People stop trusting domains and use search engines more (it's happening more &amp; more now anyhow - most people can't remember even simple domains and use search engines to find them)</p><p>6) More legal cases for domain-squatting and illegal use of registered trademarks/keywords/etc</p><p>7) No more "gold rush" mentality for the opening up of new TLDs</p><p>8) Bad press for ICANN and fewer groups willing to take part in the next "all new territory" TLD funding drive (leads to less $$$ for ICANN)</p><p>Yeah, I'm just dreaming. ICANN is rapidly joining the RIAA &amp; MPAA as a prime example of a bloated, self-serving organisation that's doing all it can to hang onto a way of existance that's no longer viable<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:(</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This could have a fascinating result : 1 ) Organisations sign up to host their own " so cool " root domain , expecting that lots of companies will be " forced " to register their key words in the new root domain2 ) Companies finally wake up and say " WTF ?
We do n't need this shit " and do n't buy in3 ) Lots of organisations who did # 1 realise they 're not going to be able to make enough to pay ICANN let alone cover their costs4 ) Scumbuckets come in and start domain-squatting , setting up crap sites , etcThe above may well lead to : 5 ) People stop trusting domains and use search engines more ( it 's happening more &amp; more now anyhow - most people ca n't remember even simple domains and use search engines to find them ) 6 ) More legal cases for domain-squatting and illegal use of registered trademarks/keywords/etc7 ) No more " gold rush " mentality for the opening up of new TLDs8 ) Bad press for ICANN and fewer groups willing to take part in the next " all new territory " TLD funding drive ( leads to less $ $ $ for ICANN ) Yeah , I 'm just dreaming .
ICANN is rapidly joining the RIAA &amp; MPAA as a prime example of a bloated , self-serving organisation that 's doing all it can to hang onto a way of existance that 's no longer viable : (</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This could have a fascinating result:1) Organisations sign up to host their own "so cool" root domain, expecting that lots of companies will be "forced" to register their key words in the new root domain2) Companies finally wake up and say "WTF?
We don't need this shit" and don't buy in3) Lots of organisations who did #1 realise they're not going to be able to make enough to pay ICANN let alone cover their costs4) Scumbuckets come in and start domain-squatting, setting up crap sites, etcThe above may well lead to:5) People stop trusting domains and use search engines more (it's happening more &amp; more now anyhow - most people can't remember even simple domains and use search engines to find them)6) More legal cases for domain-squatting and illegal use of registered trademarks/keywords/etc7) No more "gold rush" mentality for the opening up of new TLDs8) Bad press for ICANN and fewer groups willing to take part in the next "all new territory" TLD funding drive (leads to less $$$ for ICANN)Yeah, I'm just dreaming.
ICANN is rapidly joining the RIAA &amp; MPAA as a prime example of a bloated, self-serving organisation that's doing all it can to hang onto a way of existance that's no longer viable :(</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724</id>
	<title>fatboy slim be happy</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263650280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>slash.dot</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>slash.dot</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slash.dot</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30795520</id>
	<title>Re:purpose ?</title>
	<author>AbRASiON</author>
	<datestamp>1263656760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have to agree, the meaning is quite important to designate how they should be used.<br>Are those COMPLETE IDIOTS still banning<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.XXX? It's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard of and instant filter for adminsitrators of kids stuff, schools, business's to stop (some) porn in these places instantly, very very simple but you guys here already knew that, it's these idiots which don't.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have to agree , the meaning is quite important to designate how they should be used.Are those COMPLETE IDIOTS still banning .XXX ?
It 's one of the most stupid things I 've ever heard of and instant filter for adminsitrators of kids stuff , schools , business 's to stop ( some ) porn in these places instantly , very very simple but you guys here already knew that , it 's these idiots which do n't .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have to agree, the meaning is quite important to designate how they should be used.Are those COMPLETE IDIOTS still banning .XXX?
It's one of the most stupid things I've ever heard of and instant filter for adminsitrators of kids stuff, schools, business's to stop (some) porn in these places instantly, very very simple but you guys here already knew that, it's these idiots which don't.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30799196</id>
	<title>Re:purpose ?</title>
	<author>MrSnivvel</author>
	<datestamp>1263751020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why should TLDs have a purpose at all should be the first question.  They're just arbitrary.  Let there be a complete decentralization of the domain name space.  It's not like names magically gain integrity by having a current address.  If that were the case,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.gov should be the picture of piety.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why should TLDs have a purpose at all should be the first question .
They 're just arbitrary .
Let there be a complete decentralization of the domain name space .
It 's not like names magically gain integrity by having a current address .
If that were the case , .gov should be the picture of piety .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why should TLDs have a purpose at all should be the first question.
They're just arbitrary.
Let there be a complete decentralization of the domain name space.
It's not like names magically gain integrity by having a current address.
If that were the case, .gov should be the picture of piety.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789836</id>
	<title>This fills me with great hope.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263651840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.'</p><p>Opposed to the [insert comment here from someone much better versed in internet history than me] moment when DARPA became open to commercial entities?</p><p>Chaos works just fine for me, anyone else?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>'In effect , it 's like ICANN saying we do n't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track , but we 're going to fire the starting gun anyway .
'Opposed to the [ insert comment here from someone much better versed in internet history than me ] moment when DARPA became open to commercial entities ? Chaos works just fine for me , anyone else ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>'In effect, it's like ICANN saying we don't know what route this race is going to take or the shape of the track, but we're going to fire the starting gun anyway.
'Opposed to the [insert comment here from someone much better versed in internet history than me] moment when DARPA became open to commercial entities?Chaos works just fine for me, anyone else?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30795514</id>
	<title>This is a recipy for more problems..</title>
	<author>freaker\_TuC</author>
	<datestamp>1263656700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I don't know where to start first:</p><ul> <li>Cybersquatting; companies have to register even more so they won't loose their precious brands. Maybe they should fix domain squatting before adding extra TLD's?</li><li>Scripts on the net: are expecting legit input; e-mail addresses are getting checked by millions of websites, mostly through simple regexps. Once these TLD's get added, be ready for lots of these scripts to be broken.</li><li>Search engines: will be required to find your favorite site on the net; since there isn't a common qualifier (.com) anymore.</li><li>presence: it's already hard enough to know the host is hosted as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.be,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.co.uk or anything like it.</li><li>Spamming: will get to an entire new level; for both receiving and sending part. Because e-mail addresses won't have their common</li><li>Money: This seems to be a quick scheme for them to create money instead of making the Internet easier accessible; with much more advantage towards squatters and spammers instead of being there for the real internauts.</li></ul><p>To my opinion, they are going way out of line by breaking open a new set of problems without solving the number one domain problem: Thefth/copycats.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't know where to start first : Cybersquatting ; companies have to register even more so they wo n't loose their precious brands .
Maybe they should fix domain squatting before adding extra TLD 's ? Scripts on the net : are expecting legit input ; e-mail addresses are getting checked by millions of websites , mostly through simple regexps .
Once these TLD 's get added , be ready for lots of these scripts to be broken.Search engines : will be required to find your favorite site on the net ; since there is n't a common qualifier ( .com ) anymore.presence : it 's already hard enough to know the host is hosted as .com , .be , .co.uk or anything like it.Spamming : will get to an entire new level ; for both receiving and sending part .
Because e-mail addresses wo n't have their commonMoney : This seems to be a quick scheme for them to create money instead of making the Internet easier accessible ; with much more advantage towards squatters and spammers instead of being there for the real internauts.To my opinion , they are going way out of line by breaking open a new set of problems without solving the number one domain problem : Thefth/copycats .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't know where to start first: Cybersquatting; companies have to register even more so they won't loose their precious brands.
Maybe they should fix domain squatting before adding extra TLD's?Scripts on the net: are expecting legit input; e-mail addresses are getting checked by millions of websites, mostly through simple regexps.
Once these TLD's get added, be ready for lots of these scripts to be broken.Search engines: will be required to find your favorite site on the net; since there isn't a common qualifier (.com) anymore.presence: it's already hard enough to know the host is hosted as .com, .be, .co.uk or anything like it.Spamming: will get to an entire new level; for both receiving and sending part.
Because e-mail addresses won't have their commonMoney: This seems to be a quick scheme for them to create money instead of making the Internet easier accessible; with much more advantage towards squatters and spammers instead of being there for the real internauts.To my opinion, they are going way out of line by breaking open a new set of problems without solving the number one domain problem: Thefth/copycats.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789872</id>
	<title>The original summary from the article.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263652380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>The original summary reads as follows:<p><div class="quote"><p>A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains into the Internet has reached a crossroads: The plan will either be accelerated or delayed based on public comments due at the end of January.</p> </div><p>I'm glad that here at Slashdot, we have submitters/editors that dumb down the original summaries for us.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The original summary reads as follows : A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains into the Internet has reached a crossroads : The plan will either be accelerated or delayed based on public comments due at the end of January .
I 'm glad that here at Slashdot , we have submitters/editors that dumb down the original summaries for us .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The original summary reads as follows:A controversial plan to introduce hundreds of new top-level domains into the Internet has reached a crossroads: The plan will either be accelerated or delayed based on public comments due at the end of January.
I'm glad that here at Slashdot, we have submitters/editors that dumb down the original summaries for us.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30801338</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the gTLD!</title>
	<author>vanyel</author>
	<datestamp>1263723840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Exactly!  All additional tlds do is confuse end users and make it easier to for phishing scams to work.  we should phase out everything but<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net and the country code tlds, and keep those only because it makes it relatively easy to tell a given word is a domain vs something else.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net for the global internet and the country codes for sites of regional interest.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Exactly !
All additional tlds do is confuse end users and make it easier to for phishing scams to work .
we should phase out everything but .net and the country code tlds , and keep those only because it makes it relatively easy to tell a given word is a domain vs something else .
.net for the global internet and the country codes for sites of regional interest .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Exactly!
All additional tlds do is confuse end users and make it easier to for phishing scams to work.
we should phase out everything but .net and the country code tlds, and keep those only because it makes it relatively easy to tell a given word is a domain vs something else.
.net for the global internet and the country codes for sites of regional interest.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789812</id>
	<title>.con</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263651600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Whoever registers the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.con TLD will become ipso facto the king of phising...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Whoever registers the .con TLD will become ipso facto the king of phising.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Whoever registers the .con TLD will become ipso facto the king of phising...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789862</id>
	<title>Dumb, Again</title>
	<author>omb</author>
	<datestamp>1263652200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>What are TLDs? Answer text strings in the ROOT servers DNS.<br><br>The only problem here is the registrars, who want to be able to continue to charge $20/year for next to nothing,<br><br>these are, generally the same people that charge $100/year for snake-oil CA certificates.<br><br>This con should have been stopped 10 years ago but it is another thing caught up in the US corporation+politics mess and will require a 1000 page report to do nothing.</htmltext>
<tokenext>What are TLDs ?
Answer text strings in the ROOT servers DNS.The only problem here is the registrars , who want to be able to continue to charge $ 20/year for next to nothing,these are , generally the same people that charge $ 100/year for snake-oil CA certificates.This con should have been stopped 10 years ago but it is another thing caught up in the US corporation + politics mess and will require a 1000 page report to do nothing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What are TLDs?
Answer text strings in the ROOT servers DNS.The only problem here is the registrars, who want to be able to continue to charge $20/year for next to nothing,these are, generally the same people that charge $100/year for snake-oil CA certificates.This con should have been stopped 10 years ago but it is another thing caught up in the US corporation+politics mess and will require a 1000 page report to do nothing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793860</id>
	<title>Re:Down with the gTLD!</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263641760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Nobody stops you from setting up your own TLD servers. It&rsquo;s really easy actually.</p><p>If you got a good reason, and can drag others into your views, so they care enough, go ahead!<br>I&rsquo;ll support you! The only reason I don&rsquo;t have my own TLDs, is because I have not found a use for them.</p><p>I guess it would be easier, when we would just use DNS like a free graph. You know. Not a list. Not a tree. no directed hierarchy. A graph. Because reality never is a <em>single</em> hierarchy. (Which is what also causes the many problems with class hierarchies in program libraries.)</p><p>We just have to decide on an order. I say we just keep what we have:<br>Dots: Start at the end, then narrow down. Used for sites / machines.<br>Slashes: start at the beginning, then narrow down. Used for files / resources.<br>I think it may also make sense to think of ports and protocols for machines as we do with file formats for resources.</p><p>So basically completely backwards-compatible, yet much more free.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Nobody stops you from setting up your own TLD servers .
It    s really easy actually.If you got a good reason , and can drag others into your views , so they care enough , go ahead ! I    ll support you !
The only reason I don    t have my own TLDs , is because I have not found a use for them.I guess it would be easier , when we would just use DNS like a free graph .
You know .
Not a list .
Not a tree .
no directed hierarchy .
A graph .
Because reality never is a single hierarchy .
( Which is what also causes the many problems with class hierarchies in program libraries .
) We just have to decide on an order .
I say we just keep what we have : Dots : Start at the end , then narrow down .
Used for sites / machines.Slashes : start at the beginning , then narrow down .
Used for files / resources.I think it may also make sense to think of ports and protocols for machines as we do with file formats for resources.So basically completely backwards-compatible , yet much more free .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Nobody stops you from setting up your own TLD servers.
It’s really easy actually.If you got a good reason, and can drag others into your views, so they care enough, go ahead!I’ll support you!
The only reason I don’t have my own TLDs, is because I have not found a use for them.I guess it would be easier, when we would just use DNS like a free graph.
You know.
Not a list.
Not a tree.
no directed hierarchy.
A graph.
Because reality never is a single hierarchy.
(Which is what also causes the many problems with class hierarchies in program libraries.
)We just have to decide on an order.
I say we just keep what we have:Dots: Start at the end, then narrow down.
Used for sites / machines.Slashes: start at the beginning, then narrow down.
Used for files / resources.I think it may also make sense to think of ports and protocols for machines as we do with file formats for resources.So basically completely backwards-compatible, yet much more free.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791784</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791192</id>
	<title>Re:purpose ?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263664860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I disagree, ICANN has a clear purpose for adding TLDs: funding.

The primary reason ICANN wants to add TLDs (and sooner rather than later) is because it raises money for them.  Everyone who applies for a new TLD sends a check to ICANN as their first step.  It doesn't matter whether the TLD is successful long-term or not, if they have enough applicants, they can raise lots of cash.

Top salaries at ICANN increased 74\% in one year (http://gordoncook.net/wp/?p=274) between '06 and '07.  Rod Beckstrom makes $1MM per year (sfgate:http://tr.im/KzVB ).  ICANN's annual budget in '09 was $65MM, up 37\% from 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may08-en.htm).  These increases cannot be sustained without new sources of revenue, and the plan to add new TLDs is just that: a revenue generation system.

Follow the money, folks.  This has nothing to do with choice, demand, or Internet governance.  This is about a pseudo-governmental organization with an insatiable appetite for money and power and little, if any, oversight, building themselves into a $100MM pork factory.

What did ICANN do for *you* last year?  And how much should that have cost?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I disagree , ICANN has a clear purpose for adding TLDs : funding .
The primary reason ICANN wants to add TLDs ( and sooner rather than later ) is because it raises money for them .
Everyone who applies for a new TLD sends a check to ICANN as their first step .
It does n't matter whether the TLD is successful long-term or not , if they have enough applicants , they can raise lots of cash .
Top salaries at ICANN increased 74 \ % in one year ( http : //gordoncook.net/wp/ ? p = 274 ) between '06 and '07 .
Rod Beckstrom makes $ 1MM per year ( sfgate : http : //tr.im/KzVB ) .
ICANN 's annual budget in '09 was $ 65MM , up 37 \ % from 2008 ( http : //www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may08-en.htm ) .
These increases can not be sustained without new sources of revenue , and the plan to add new TLDs is just that : a revenue generation system .
Follow the money , folks .
This has nothing to do with choice , demand , or Internet governance .
This is about a pseudo-governmental organization with an insatiable appetite for money and power and little , if any , oversight , building themselves into a $ 100MM pork factory .
What did ICANN do for * you * last year ?
And how much should that have cost ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I disagree, ICANN has a clear purpose for adding TLDs: funding.
The primary reason ICANN wants to add TLDs (and sooner rather than later) is because it raises money for them.
Everyone who applies for a new TLD sends a check to ICANN as their first step.
It doesn't matter whether the TLD is successful long-term or not, if they have enough applicants, they can raise lots of cash.
Top salaries at ICANN increased 74\% in one year (http://gordoncook.net/wp/?p=274) between '06 and '07.
Rod Beckstrom makes $1MM per year (sfgate:http://tr.im/KzVB ).
ICANN's annual budget in '09 was $65MM, up 37\% from 2008 (http://www.icann.org/en/announcements/announcement-17may08-en.htm).
These increases cannot be sustained without new sources of revenue, and the plan to add new TLDs is just that: a revenue generation system.
Follow the money, folks.
This has nothing to do with choice, demand, or Internet governance.
This is about a pseudo-governmental organization with an insatiable appetite for money and power and little, if any, oversight, building themselves into a $100MM pork factory.
What did ICANN do for *you* last year?
And how much should that have cost?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792054</id>
	<title>Re:Bluring the lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263670860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Even better (or depending on how you look at it even worse),</p><p>http://Buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Even better ( or depending on how you look at it even worse ) ,http : //Buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Even better (or depending on how you look at it even worse),http://Buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.buffalo.Buffalo.buffalo/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792818</id>
	<title>On SNL Humor</title>
	<author>JoCat</author>
	<datestamp>1263633840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Finally clownpenis.fart can be real.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Finally clownpenis.fart can be real .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Finally clownpenis.fart can be real.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790684</id>
	<title>Scarcity / Squatters</title>
	<author>chapstercni</author>
	<datestamp>1263660840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Several things imo.</p><p>As websites increase in number, the typical need for more unique domains increase. If a significant number of unique names are all tried to pull from a small number of TLD's, this makes it more difficult to find an available name that fits what you are trying to do. A substantial number of domains are tied up because of the squatters.</p><p>If the REAL cost was ten bucks a year or so to keep a domain, the squatting would go down. Remember when<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com was $50.00 a year? The really juicy names would still be squatted on. With business.com selling for how many millions?</p><p>If a lot of new<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.TLD's are opened up, then it will be easy for you to get a domain you want. Say, bobspizza.newtld. If there is a real baseline of cost that makes it unlikely that people will squat on these new domains, then they will be available for business/people/organizations to use. However,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com is STILL the king of domains, and is what people want. But increase the supply say with 100 new TLD's (or more), and the impact of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com will be lessened, and the cost of squatting will become just too much.</p><p>I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays. With no TLD at all.</p><p>Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Several things imo.As websites increase in number , the typical need for more unique domains increase .
If a significant number of unique names are all tried to pull from a small number of TLD 's , this makes it more difficult to find an available name that fits what you are trying to do .
A substantial number of domains are tied up because of the squatters.If the REAL cost was ten bucks a year or so to keep a domain , the squatting would go down .
Remember when .com was $ 50.00 a year ?
The really juicy names would still be squatted on .
With business.com selling for how many millions ? If a lot of new .TLD 's are opened up , then it will be easy for you to get a domain you want .
Say , bobspizza.newtld .
If there is a real baseline of cost that makes it unlikely that people will squat on these new domains , then they will be available for business/people/organizations to use .
However , .com is STILL the king of domains , and is what people want .
But increase the supply say with 100 new TLD 's ( or more ) , and the impact of .com will be lessened , and the cost of squatting will become just too much.I 've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays .
With no TLD at all.Will be interesting to see how this all plays out .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Several things imo.As websites increase in number, the typical need for more unique domains increase.
If a significant number of unique names are all tried to pull from a small number of TLD's, this makes it more difficult to find an available name that fits what you are trying to do.
A substantial number of domains are tied up because of the squatters.If the REAL cost was ten bucks a year or so to keep a domain, the squatting would go down.
Remember when .com was $50.00 a year?
The really juicy names would still be squatted on.
With business.com selling for how many millions?If a lot of new .TLD's are opened up, then it will be easy for you to get a domain you want.
Say, bobspizza.newtld.
If there is a real baseline of cost that makes it unlikely that people will squat on these new domains, then they will be available for business/people/organizations to use.
However, .com is STILL the king of domains, and is what people want.
But increase the supply say with 100 new TLD's (or more), and the impact of .com will be lessened, and the cost of squatting will become just too much.I've noticed that organizations and businesses are using facebook/wordpress for websites a lot nowadays.
With no TLD at all.Will be interesting to see how this all plays out.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789858</id>
	<title>Re:.con</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263652140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>.con<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.corn</p><p>with some fonts<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.corn (.CORN) would be more trouble.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>.con .com .cornwith some fonts .corn ( .CORN ) would be more trouble .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>.con .com .cornwith some fonts .corn (.CORN) would be more trouble.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810</id>
	<title>Bluring the lines</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263651540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>That's just going to blur the lines between TLD, domains and subdomains.</p><p><a href="http://sport.sport.sport/" title="sport.sport.sport">http://sport.sport.sport/</a> [sport.sport.sport]<br>Without the protocol, I'm not going to parse that as a URL at all.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That 's just going to blur the lines between TLD , domains and subdomains.http : //sport.sport.sport/ [ sport.sport.sport ] Without the protocol , I 'm not going to parse that as a URL at all .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That's just going to blur the lines between TLD, domains and subdomains.http://sport.sport.sport/ [sport.sport.sport]Without the protocol, I'm not going to parse that as a URL at all.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790096</id>
	<title>Long overdue</title>
	<author>Low Ranked Craig</author>
	<datestamp>1263655200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The only reason that<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com was so popular was due to marketing; practically no one in meatspace knows what<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com even means.  It's just a freaking address for Christ's sake.  We need a metric shit ton of new TLDs so that we can get away from "premium" TLDs.  It's a lot like when they rolled out 888 and 877 toll-free numbers; 800 numbers commanded a premium, due to marketing.  it's a just a phone number, if your customers can find you who cares?  Besides, do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough not to call you or visit your site because you don't have an 800 number or a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com domain?  I do have a number of<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com domains, but I really wish the importance of the TLDs would diminish. </p><p>Oh, and fuck domain squaters.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The only reason that .com was so popular was due to marketing ; practically no one in meatspace knows what .com even means .
It 's just a freaking address for Christ 's sake .
We need a metric shit ton of new TLDs so that we can get away from " premium " TLDs .
It 's a lot like when they rolled out 888 and 877 toll-free numbers ; 800 numbers commanded a premium , due to marketing .
it 's a just a phone number , if your customers can find you who cares ?
Besides , do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough not to call you or visit your site because you do n't have an 800 number or a .com domain ?
I do have a number of .com domains , but I really wish the importance of the TLDs would diminish .
Oh , and fuck domain squaters .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The only reason that .com was so popular was due to marketing; practically no one in meatspace knows what .com even means.
It's just a freaking address for Christ's sake.
We need a metric shit ton of new TLDs so that we can get away from "premium" TLDs.
It's a lot like when they rolled out 888 and 877 toll-free numbers; 800 numbers commanded a premium, due to marketing.
it's a just a phone number, if your customers can find you who cares?
Besides, do you really want a customer that is ignorant enough not to call you or visit your site because you don't have an 800 number or a .com domain?
I do have a number of .com domains, but I really wish the importance of the TLDs would diminish.
Oh, and fuck domain squaters.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791936</id>
	<title>Dot Dot?</title>
	<author>synthmob</author>
	<datestamp>1263669960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>We need a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.DOT domain -- that'll confuse somebody....</htmltext>
<tokenext>We need a .DOT domain -- that 'll confuse somebody... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We need a .DOT domain -- that'll confuse somebody....</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791784</id>
	<title>Down with the gTLD!</title>
	<author>transami</author>
	<datestamp>1263668940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have a much better idea. Get rid of the gTLDs altogether. They are an arbitrary crutch to begin with. Without them we could have freeform domain names and end the silly quabbles over myname.everytldthereis.</p><p>What they are up to now looks more like damn money making scheme.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a much better idea .
Get rid of the gTLDs altogether .
They are an arbitrary crutch to begin with .
Without them we could have freeform domain names and end the silly quabbles over myname.everytldthereis.What they are up to now looks more like damn money making scheme .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a much better idea.
Get rid of the gTLDs altogether.
They are an arbitrary crutch to begin with.
Without them we could have freeform domain names and end the silly quabbles over myname.everytldthereis.What they are up to now looks more like damn money making scheme.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791180</id>
	<title>Re:fatboy slim be happy</title>
	<author>cndjs1985</author>
	<datestamp>1263664800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>slash.dot</p></div><p>Brazil has hit Haiti, sent 140 rescue workers
Brazil's Defense Ministry issued a statement on the 16th, said that since the earthquake in Haiti, Brazil has hit Haiti, sent 140 rescue workers, and transported more than 80 tons of relief supplies.

    The communique says that since the airport traffic jams, there are three planes transporting relief supplies in the Dominican capital, Santo Domingo, Brazil, the waiting time is longer, from 16 am to arrive at the Haitian capital Port au Prince airport.

    The evening of 15 Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had telephoned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hopes the United States to Brazil to facilitate the rescue aircraft taking off and landing time.

    It is reported that in Haiti caused by the earthquake paralyzed the local government, the U.S. military took over the Port au Prince airport, air traffic control work.

    The United Nations since 2004, sent to the Stabilization Mission in Haiti, where the main peacekeeping force led by Brazil.

    Haiti, 12 pm local time a magnitude 7.3 earthquake, resulting in the capital, Port-au-a large number of houses damaged or collapsed, and led to heavy casualties. After the earthquake, the international community to lend a helping hand to assist in the rescue.
<a href="http://www.zhliao.cn/" title="zhliao.cn" rel="nofollow">http://www.zhliao.cn/</a> [zhliao.cn]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>slash.dotBrazil has hit Haiti , sent 140 rescue workers Brazil 's Defense Ministry issued a statement on the 16th , said that since the earthquake in Haiti , Brazil has hit Haiti , sent 140 rescue workers , and transported more than 80 tons of relief supplies .
The communique says that since the airport traffic jams , there are three planes transporting relief supplies in the Dominican capital , Santo Domingo , Brazil , the waiting time is longer , from 16 am to arrive at the Haitian capital Port au Prince airport .
The evening of 15 Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had telephoned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton , hopes the United States to Brazil to facilitate the rescue aircraft taking off and landing time .
It is reported that in Haiti caused by the earthquake paralyzed the local government , the U.S. military took over the Port au Prince airport , air traffic control work .
The United Nations since 2004 , sent to the Stabilization Mission in Haiti , where the main peacekeeping force led by Brazil .
Haiti , 12 pm local time a magnitude 7.3 earthquake , resulting in the capital , Port-au-a large number of houses damaged or collapsed , and led to heavy casualties .
After the earthquake , the international community to lend a helping hand to assist in the rescue .
http : //www.zhliao.cn/ [ zhliao.cn ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>slash.dotBrazil has hit Haiti, sent 140 rescue workers
Brazil's Defense Ministry issued a statement on the 16th, said that since the earthquake in Haiti, Brazil has hit Haiti, sent 140 rescue workers, and transported more than 80 tons of relief supplies.
The communique says that since the airport traffic jams, there are three planes transporting relief supplies in the Dominican capital, Santo Domingo, Brazil, the waiting time is longer, from 16 am to arrive at the Haitian capital Port au Prince airport.
The evening of 15 Brazilian Foreign Minister Celso Amorim said he had telephoned U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, hopes the United States to Brazil to facilitate the rescue aircraft taking off and landing time.
It is reported that in Haiti caused by the earthquake paralyzed the local government, the U.S. military took over the Port au Prince airport, air traffic control work.
The United Nations since 2004, sent to the Stabilization Mission in Haiti, where the main peacekeeping force led by Brazil.
Haiti, 12 pm local time a magnitude 7.3 earthquake, resulting in the capital, Port-au-a large number of houses damaged or collapsed, and led to heavy casualties.
After the earthquake, the international community to lend a helping hand to assist in the rescue.
http://www.zhliao.cn/ [zhliao.cn]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792356</id>
	<title>.blog?</title>
	<author>Stepnsteph</author>
	<datestamp>1263673440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Are we getting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.blog yet?  Actually that fad's kind of gone and Facebook is the new blog, so maybe<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.social .  How long can these TLDs be?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Are we getting .blog yet ?
Actually that fad 's kind of gone and Facebook is the new blog , so maybe .social .
How long can these TLDs be ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Are we getting .blog yet?
Actually that fad's kind of gone and Facebook is the new blog, so maybe .social .
How long can these TLDs be?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791230</id>
	<title>ICANN is a mess</title>
	<author>canadian\_in\_beijing</author>
	<datestamp>1263665220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>ICANN messed up tld long time ago by not keeping it simple and putting profits ahead of consumers best interest.
<p>
Gov, com, edu etc are essential and geo/ country domains are also required due to the recent localization of search.   Who uses<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.travel or any of the other major tld currently in operation?  Nobody because they are not marketed properly and confuse people.
</p><p>
Some new tld will be solid for large niches in the internet (.porn,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.xxx,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.city, etc) and could be profitable, but the costs associated with having your own tld will be expensive and the risks high.  Solid business plans and capital will be essential for the next wave of tld (not the same as regular domaining).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ICANN messed up tld long time ago by not keeping it simple and putting profits ahead of consumers best interest .
Gov , com , edu etc are essential and geo/ country domains are also required due to the recent localization of search .
Who uses .travel or any of the other major tld currently in operation ?
Nobody because they are not marketed properly and confuse people .
Some new tld will be solid for large niches in the internet ( .porn , .xxx , .city , etc ) and could be profitable , but the costs associated with having your own tld will be expensive and the risks high .
Solid business plans and capital will be essential for the next wave of tld ( not the same as regular domaining ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICANN messed up tld long time ago by not keeping it simple and putting profits ahead of consumers best interest.
Gov, com, edu etc are essential and geo/ country domains are also required due to the recent localization of search.
Who uses .travel or any of the other major tld currently in operation?
Nobody because they are not marketed properly and confuse people.
Some new tld will be solid for large niches in the internet (.porn, .xxx, .city, etc) and could be profitable, but the costs associated with having your own tld will be expensive and the risks high.
Solid business plans and capital will be essential for the next wave of tld (not the same as regular domaining).</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792024</id>
	<title>Money for Domain Vendors</title>
	<author>pubwvj</author>
	<datestamp>1263670680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>All this so they can try and sell us<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.abc,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.bcd,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cde,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.def and other versions of the domains. Big money for domain registrars.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>All this so they can try and sell us .abc , .bcd , .cde , .def and other versions of the domains .
Big money for domain registrars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>All this so they can try and sell us .abc, .bcd, .cde, .def and other versions of the domains.
Big money for domain registrars.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789720</id>
	<title>This just in...</title>
	<author>Amorymeltzer</author>
	<datestamp>1263650280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The process could be really fast or not-so-fast!  We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast.  Full story at 11.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The process could be really fast or not-so-fast !
We do n't really know exactly yet , though , so it 's somewhere around either fast or not fast .
Full story at 11 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The process could be really fast or not-so-fast!
We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast.
Full story at 11.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792046</id>
	<title>Re:fatboy slim be happy</title>
	<author>Professor\_UNIX</author>
	<datestamp>1263670800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I remember the good old days back around 1998 when people used to bitch about Slashdot using the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org TLD when they should have been a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com because they were commercial and had advertising.  Now the Internet is going to be totally fucked and non-hierarchical. This plan must have been approved by the same kind of people that see no problem injecting<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/29 subnets into the global BGP routing tables.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I remember the good old days back around 1998 when people used to bitch about Slashdot using the .org TLD when they should have been a .com because they were commercial and had advertising .
Now the Internet is going to be totally fucked and non-hierarchical .
This plan must have been approved by the same kind of people that see no problem injecting /29 subnets into the global BGP routing tables .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I remember the good old days back around 1998 when people used to bitch about Slashdot using the .org TLD when they should have been a .com because they were commercial and had advertising.
Now the Internet is going to be totally fucked and non-hierarchical.
This plan must have been approved by the same kind of people that see no problem injecting /29 subnets into the global BGP routing tables.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790050</id>
	<title>Dot PR</title>
	<author>Elektroschock</author>
	<datestamp>1263654600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The old baltic kingdom of <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?gl=US&amp;v=XUuFcsdo1Fs" title="youtube.com">Prussia</a> [youtube.com] requires a top level domain.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The old baltic kingdom of Prussia [ youtube.com ] requires a top level domain .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The old baltic kingdom of Prussia [youtube.com] requires a top level domain.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792074</id>
	<title>Re:.con</title>
	<author>Professor\_UNIX</author>
	<datestamp>1263671040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Oh it's just not<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.con, they want to let you use any unicode characters in the domains so you'll essentially have characters that look exactly like ".com", but they're different unicode characters.  THAT will be when the phishing gets nasty if someone slips something like that through.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Oh it 's just not .con , they want to let you use any unicode characters in the domains so you 'll essentially have characters that look exactly like " .com " , but they 're different unicode characters .
THAT will be when the phishing gets nasty if someone slips something like that through .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oh it's just not .con, they want to let you use any unicode characters in the domains so you'll essentially have characters that look exactly like ".com", but they're different unicode characters.
THAT will be when the phishing gets nasty if someone slips something like that through.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789812</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792800</id>
	<title>Re:This just in...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263633780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The process could be really fast or not-so-fast!  We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast.  Full story at 11.</p></div><p>It's worse than that. This hemming and hawing is based on the misguided notion that we need to know how things are going to turn out before rolling it out. Nobody knew how the Internet itself would evolve. Sometimes you have to just put things out there, and let the people work it out. Even worse-case, it's not like this is going to cause the Internet to collapse, or cause a spike in road deaths or armed robberies or anything. At worst, it might mean there are even more domains that no one uses, and at best, it means a much more vibrant internet.</p><p>But really, TLD's need to go away altogether. Or at least be supplemented with a namespace that is more open. Why can't Apple have an actual<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.mac, or MS a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ms. Or even<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.apple,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.microsoft,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sony, etc.? It's not like the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com means anything much more than "this is the end of the domain name" anymore anyways. And<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.net just means, "I was too late to buy<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com", and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.org just means "I don't want to sound like a business and/or I was too late for<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.com".<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.info?<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.biz? Lame attempts to guess at what people want. Just let them *buy* what they want. This is a *much* better way to solve something as complex as the Internet.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The process could be really fast or not-so-fast !
We do n't really know exactly yet , though , so it 's somewhere around either fast or not fast .
Full story at 11.It 's worse than that .
This hemming and hawing is based on the misguided notion that we need to know how things are going to turn out before rolling it out .
Nobody knew how the Internet itself would evolve .
Sometimes you have to just put things out there , and let the people work it out .
Even worse-case , it 's not like this is going to cause the Internet to collapse , or cause a spike in road deaths or armed robberies or anything .
At worst , it might mean there are even more domains that no one uses , and at best , it means a much more vibrant internet.But really , TLD 's need to go away altogether .
Or at least be supplemented with a namespace that is more open .
Why ca n't Apple have an actual .mac , or MS a .ms .
Or even .apple , .microsoft , .sony , etc. ?
It 's not like the .com means anything much more than " this is the end of the domain name " anymore anyways .
And .net just means , " I was too late to buy .com " , and .org just means " I do n't want to sound like a business and/or I was too late for .com " .
.info ? .biz ?
Lame attempts to guess at what people want .
Just let them * buy * what they want .
This is a * much * better way to solve something as complex as the Internet .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The process could be really fast or not-so-fast!
We don't really know exactly yet, though, so it's somewhere around either fast or not fast.
Full story at 11.It's worse than that.
This hemming and hawing is based on the misguided notion that we need to know how things are going to turn out before rolling it out.
Nobody knew how the Internet itself would evolve.
Sometimes you have to just put things out there, and let the people work it out.
Even worse-case, it's not like this is going to cause the Internet to collapse, or cause a spike in road deaths or armed robberies or anything.
At worst, it might mean there are even more domains that no one uses, and at best, it means a much more vibrant internet.But really, TLD's need to go away altogether.
Or at least be supplemented with a namespace that is more open.
Why can't Apple have an actual .mac, or MS a .ms.
Or even .apple, .microsoft, .sony, etc.?
It's not like the .com means anything much more than "this is the end of the domain name" anymore anyways.
And .net just means, "I was too late to buy .com", and .org just means "I don't want to sound like a business and/or I was too late for .com".
.info? .biz?
Lame attempts to guess at what people want.
Just let them *buy* what they want.
This is a *much* better way to solve something as complex as the Internet.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789720</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792764</id>
	<title>Use this to push IPv6</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263633600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Go ahead and allow the new domains.</p><p>However, make a rule that all sites and DNS servers in the new TLDs must exist in IPv6 form only, and make it an instant ban if anyone using the new TLD is caught with any A record in their zone file for that TLD.</p><p>Maybe it will push things to IPv6, especially if the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.XXX TLD exists in IPv6 form only.  Pron is the only way that we can get a large amount of people to move to IPv6 before the run-out in 600 days or so.....</p><p>This way, although I think we have too many TLD's now, if this could be used to push people to IPv6, Id go along......</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Go ahead and allow the new domains.However , make a rule that all sites and DNS servers in the new TLDs must exist in IPv6 form only , and make it an instant ban if anyone using the new TLD is caught with any A record in their zone file for that TLD.Maybe it will push things to IPv6 , especially if the .XXX TLD exists in IPv6 form only .
Pron is the only way that we can get a large amount of people to move to IPv6 before the run-out in 600 days or so.....This way , although I think we have too many TLD 's now , if this could be used to push people to IPv6 , Id go along..... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Go ahead and allow the new domains.However, make a rule that all sites and DNS servers in the new TLDs must exist in IPv6 form only, and make it an instant ban if anyone using the new TLD is caught with any A record in their zone file for that TLD.Maybe it will push things to IPv6, especially if the .XXX TLD exists in IPv6 form only.
Pron is the only way that we can get a large amount of people to move to IPv6 before the run-out in 600 days or so.....This way, although I think we have too many TLD's now, if this could be used to push people to IPv6, Id go along......</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790432</id>
	<title>Re:100s?</title>
	<author>Lennie</author>
	<datestamp>1263658680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think someone should register:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.cdn<br><br>I see a lot of domains now being registered twice, ytimg, yimg, fbcdn, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think someone should register : .cdnI see a lot of domains now being registered twice , ytimg , yimg , fbcdn , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think someone should register: .cdnI see a lot of domains now being registered twice, ytimg, yimg, fbcdn, etc.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790136</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789900</id>
	<title>The question is when?</title>
	<author>rossdee</author>
	<datestamp>1263652800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Probably after Dec 21, 2012</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Probably after Dec 21 , 2012</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Probably after Dec 21, 2012</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790600</id>
	<title>Re:.con</title>
	<author>Tjebbe</author>
	<datestamp>1263660060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To quote a speaker I saw on this topic; "The Internet is for (.)corn"</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>To quote a speaker I saw on this topic ; " The Internet is for ( .
) corn "</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To quote a speaker I saw on this topic; "The Internet is for (.
)corn"
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789858</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791976</id>
	<title>Re:purpose ? - protecting people..</title>
	<author>anon mouse-cow-aard</author>
	<datestamp>1263670260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I think TLD's should be used to organize fraud to make it easier to manage.  We just ask all tricksters use the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.con TLD.

similarly, people with intent to bomb should be steered towards a<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.terror TLD.  or perhaps a more generic<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.violence.

Also, TLD's should be translated, so that in French the TLD is  <a href="http://alqaeda.terreur/" title="alqaeda.terreur">http://alqaeda.terreur/</a> [alqaeda.terreur]  if your language setting is FR.

regardless of wether the URL is<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.con,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.fraude,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.terreur,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.terror,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.violence,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.violencia, etc... We would then have a simple means of implementing <a href="http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html" title="faqs.org">http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html</a> [faqs.org] RFC 3514, just set the evil bit on all traffic coming from these domains.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I think TLD 's should be used to organize fraud to make it easier to manage .
We just ask all tricksters use the .con TLD .
similarly , people with intent to bomb should be steered towards a .terror TLD .
or perhaps a more generic .violence .
Also , TLD 's should be translated , so that in French the TLD is http : //alqaeda.terreur/ [ alqaeda.terreur ] if your language setting is FR .
regardless of wether the URL is .con , .fraude , .terreur , .terror , .violence , .violencia , etc... We would then have a simple means of implementing http : //www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html [ faqs.org ] RFC 3514 , just set the evil bit on all traffic coming from these domains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I think TLD's should be used to organize fraud to make it easier to manage.
We just ask all tricksters use the .con TLD.
similarly, people with intent to bomb should be steered towards a .terror TLD.
or perhaps a more generic .violence.
Also, TLD's should be translated, so that in French the TLD is  http://alqaeda.terreur/ [alqaeda.terreur]  if your language setting is FR.
regardless of wether the URL is .con, .fraude, .terreur, .terror, .violence, .violencia, etc... We would then have a simple means of implementing http://www.faqs.org/rfcs/rfc3514.html [faqs.org] RFC 3514, just set the evil bit on all traffic coming from these domains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790136</id>
	<title>100s?</title>
	<author>nurb432</author>
	<datestamp>1263655560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dilute DNS even more.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dilute DNS even more .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dilute DNS even more.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838</id>
	<title>purpose ?</title>
	<author>Tom</author>
	<datestamp>1263651900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>To me, the major issue appears to be that ICANN doesn't have a clear vision on what the <b>purpose</b> of TLD is.</p><p>In the past, we had two types of TLDs: One for geographical/political designation (country TLDs) and one for organisation-type designation (.com/.net/.org/.mil/.edu).</p><p>The ones they added, and which I think everyone agrees were utterly stupid, are a mix of lobby-dumbness and content designation (.info,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.pro,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.aero)</p><p>What we need is a clear view on what the <b>meaning</b> of the TLD should be. But since we don't get that, because ICANN doesn't have a vision at all, we'll end up with a mess of crap, no matter which way they turn.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>To me , the major issue appears to be that ICANN does n't have a clear vision on what the purpose of TLD is.In the past , we had two types of TLDs : One for geographical/political designation ( country TLDs ) and one for organisation-type designation ( .com/.net/.org/.mil/.edu ) .The ones they added , and which I think everyone agrees were utterly stupid , are a mix of lobby-dumbness and content designation ( .info , .pro , .aero ) What we need is a clear view on what the meaning of the TLD should be .
But since we do n't get that , because ICANN does n't have a vision at all , we 'll end up with a mess of crap , no matter which way they turn .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>To me, the major issue appears to be that ICANN doesn't have a clear vision on what the purpose of TLD is.In the past, we had two types of TLDs: One for geographical/political designation (country TLDs) and one for organisation-type designation (.com/.net/.org/.mil/.edu).The ones they added, and which I think everyone agrees were utterly stupid, are a mix of lobby-dumbness and content designation (.info, .pro, .aero)What we need is a clear view on what the meaning of the TLD should be.
But since we don't get that, because ICANN doesn't have a vision at all, we'll end up with a mess of crap, no matter which way they turn.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793648</id>
	<title>Re:fatboy slim be happy</title>
	<author>Hurricane78</author>
	<datestamp>1263640560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My favorite URL right now: &ldquo;to&rdquo;.<br>That&rsquo;s it. Enter it in your address bar, and press enter.<br>(In the rare occasion that it doesn&rsquo;t work, you can try: &ldquo;http://to.&rdquo;)</p><p>But wouldn&rsquo;t Fatboy Slim&rsquo;s homepage be more like:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.-./.-./.-./.com.com.com....com</p><p>Unfortunately, it would be hosted on 127.0.0.1.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My favorite URL right now :    to    .That    s it .
Enter it in your address bar , and press enter .
( In the rare occasion that it doesn    t work , you can try :    http : //to.    ) But wouldn    t Fatboy Slim    s homepage be more like : /.-./.-./.-./.com.com.com....comUnfortunately , it would be hosted on 127.0.0.1. ; )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My favorite URL right now: “to”.That’s it.
Enter it in your address bar, and press enter.
(In the rare occasion that it doesn’t work, you can try: “http://to.”)But wouldn’t Fatboy Slim’s homepage be more like: /.-./.-./.-./.com.com.com....comUnfortunately, it would be hosted on 127.0.0.1. ;)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793770</id>
	<title>Re:Long overdue</title>
	<author>innocent\_white\_lamb</author>
	<datestamp>1263641340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>fuck domain squaters.</i> <br>
&nbsp; <br>I completely agree with your sentiment.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Having said that, I feel a bit hypocritical because I discovered that my name was available in my country's tld (firstnamelastname.tld) a couple of weeks ago so I immediately registered it and added it to the half-dozen domain names that I currently use for various legitimate business enterprises.<br>
&nbsp; <br>However, I have no immediate idea what to do with my new firstnamelastname.tld domain name, yet.  I put up a generic webpage with my name and address on it and set it up to receive email sent to me and I'm sure I'll think of a real use for it at some point.  I have a few vague ideas but nothing that I'm ready to start implementing yet.<br>
&nbsp; <br>I wanted to grab it quick before someone else did and I'm mostly just sitting on it for the moment.<br>
&nbsp; <br>Does that make me a domain squatter?  [shudder]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>fuck domain squaters .
  I completely agree with your sentiment .
  Having said that , I feel a bit hypocritical because I discovered that my name was available in my country 's tld ( firstnamelastname.tld ) a couple of weeks ago so I immediately registered it and added it to the half-dozen domain names that I currently use for various legitimate business enterprises .
  However , I have no immediate idea what to do with my new firstnamelastname.tld domain name , yet .
I put up a generic webpage with my name and address on it and set it up to receive email sent to me and I 'm sure I 'll think of a real use for it at some point .
I have a few vague ideas but nothing that I 'm ready to start implementing yet .
  I wanted to grab it quick before someone else did and I 'm mostly just sitting on it for the moment .
  Does that make me a domain squatter ?
[ shudder ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>fuck domain squaters.
  I completely agree with your sentiment.
  Having said that, I feel a bit hypocritical because I discovered that my name was available in my country's tld (firstnamelastname.tld) a couple of weeks ago so I immediately registered it and added it to the half-dozen domain names that I currently use for various legitimate business enterprises.
  However, I have no immediate idea what to do with my new firstnamelastname.tld domain name, yet.
I put up a generic webpage with my name and address on it and set it up to receive email sent to me and I'm sure I'll think of a real use for it at some point.
I have a few vague ideas but nothing that I'm ready to start implementing yet.
  I wanted to grab it quick before someone else did and I'm mostly just sitting on it for the moment.
  Does that make me a domain squatter?
[shudder]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790096</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789786</id>
	<title>Standards for Morality and Public Order</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263651180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This should be kind of interesting to the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.ers. The 2009 <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/comments-e-en.htm#matrix" title="icann.org">Public Comment Fourm meeting minutes</a> [icann.org] produced an interesting document called the <a href="http://www.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/morality-public-order-30may09-en.pdf" title="icann.org">Standards for Morality and Public Order document</a> [icann.org].  A summary of key points:</p><p>
&nbsp; </p><p><div class="quote"><p>Legal research was conducted in selected jurisdictions in every region of the world in order to develop standards for the implementation of a dispute process for the GNSO recommendation on morality and public order.</p><p>Sitting and former judges on international tribunals, as well as attorneys and law professors who regularly appear before them, were consulted on appropriate limitations found in the legal research that could be incorporate into workable standards.</p><p>As a result of the legal research and consultations, the four identified standards are: (i) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; (ii) incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin; (iii) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or (iv) a determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to equally generally accepted identified legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under general principles of international law<br>I. Introduction and background</p></div></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>This should be kind of interesting to the /.ers .
The 2009 Public Comment Fourm meeting minutes [ icann.org ] produced an interesting document called the Standards for Morality and Public Order document [ icann.org ] .
A summary of key points :   Legal research was conducted in selected jurisdictions in every region of the world in order to develop standards for the implementation of a dispute process for the GNSO recommendation on morality and public order.Sitting and former judges on international tribunals , as well as attorneys and law professors who regularly appear before them , were consulted on appropriate limitations found in the legal research that could be incorporate into workable standards.As a result of the legal research and consultations , the four identified standards are : ( i ) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action ; ( ii ) incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race , color , gender , ethnicity , religion or national origin ; ( iii ) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children ; or ( iv ) a determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to equally generally accepted identified legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under general principles of international lawI .
Introduction and background</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This should be kind of interesting to the /.ers.
The 2009 Public Comment Fourm meeting minutes [icann.org] produced an interesting document called the Standards for Morality and Public Order document [icann.org].
A summary of key points:
  Legal research was conducted in selected jurisdictions in every region of the world in order to develop standards for the implementation of a dispute process for the GNSO recommendation on morality and public order.Sitting and former judges on international tribunals, as well as attorneys and law professors who regularly appear before them, were consulted on appropriate limitations found in the legal research that could be incorporate into workable standards.As a result of the legal research and consultations, the four identified standards are: (i) Incitement to or promotion of violent lawless action; (ii) incitement to or promotion of discrimination based upon race, color, gender, ethnicity, religion or national origin; (iii) Incitement to or promotion of child pornography or other sexual abuse of children; or (iv) a determination that an applied-for gTLD string would be contrary to equally generally accepted identified legal norms relating to morality and public order that are recognized under general principles of international lawI.
Introduction and background
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790630</id>
	<title>Re:Bluring the lines</title>
	<author>Daimanta</author>
	<datestamp>1263660360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand it might be helpful with links like bork.bork.bork</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand it might be helpful with links like bork.bork.bork</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand it might be helpful with links like bork.bork.bork</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790224</id>
	<title>Re:Cyber Squatters</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263656580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Not sure why they are considered cybersquatters. If food.net was available anyone with half a brain cell would register it, regardless of developement ambition. Cnet owns the worlds best domains and does little more than redirect them and yet they are let off the hook.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Not sure why they are considered cybersquatters .
If food.net was available anyone with half a brain cell would register it , regardless of developement ambition .
Cnet owns the worlds best domains and does little more than redirect them and yet they are let off the hook .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Not sure why they are considered cybersquatters.
If food.net was available anyone with half a brain cell would register it, regardless of developement ambition.
Cnet owns the worlds best domains and does little more than redirect them and yet they are let off the hook.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789886</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793154</id>
	<title>Is one of them .fart?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1263636840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I hope so.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I hope so .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I hope so.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790696</id>
	<title>The title *should* read...</title>
	<author>epp\_b</author>
	<datestamp>1263660960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><b>ICANN proposes hundreds of new TLDs for cash-grab.</b> <br> <br>

From TFA:<blockquote><div><p>The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a pre-registration process for organizations that want to apply for new domain name extensions, such as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.jazz,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.sport and<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.food.</p></div> </blockquote><p>
This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets (ie.:<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.coke,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.ford,<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.msoft, etc.).  This is really not how the domain name system as a whole should work.  We can't have creative new domain possibilities opened up only for a select few rich and famous.  I'm not saying that they should be selling custom TLDs to anyone who wants one (although that shouldn't be a problem *), but simply continue to introduce generic TLDs that make sense (as quoted from the TFA).<br> <br>

* if someone registers<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.coke, how is that any different from someone registering cokewebsite.com?  Either is a trademark issue with Coke and neither is for ICANN to deal with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ICANN proposes hundreds of new TLDs for cash-grab .
From TFA : The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ( ICANN ) is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a pre-registration process for organizations that want to apply for new domain name extensions , such as .jazz , .sport and .food .
This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets ( ie .
: .coke , .ford , .msoft , etc. ) .
This is really not how the domain name system as a whole should work .
We ca n't have creative new domain possibilities opened up only for a select few rich and famous .
I 'm not saying that they should be selling custom TLDs to anyone who wants one ( although that should n't be a problem * ) , but simply continue to introduce generic TLDs that make sense ( as quoted from the TFA ) .
* if someone registers .coke , how is that any different from someone registering cokewebsite.com ?
Either is a trademark issue with Coke and neither is for ICANN to deal with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ICANN proposes hundreds of new TLDs for cash-grab.
From TFA:The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is seeking feedback on a proposal to create a pre-registration process for organizations that want to apply for new domain name extensions, such as .jazz, .sport and .food.
This is the same cash-grab proposal from a number of months ago where ICANN was considering offering custom TLDs to those with big enough pockets (ie.
: .coke, .ford, .msoft, etc.).
This is really not how the domain name system as a whole should work.
We can't have creative new domain possibilities opened up only for a select few rich and famous.
I'm not saying that they should be selling custom TLDs to anyone who wants one (although that shouldn't be a problem *), but simply continue to introduce generic TLDs that make sense (as quoted from the TFA).
* if someone registers .coke, how is that any different from someone registering cokewebsite.com?
Either is a trademark issue with Coke and neither is for ICANN to deal with.
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30795520
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792800
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789720
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790600
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789858
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793860
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790342
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791192
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790432
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790136
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790630
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791976
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793648
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789938
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792046
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792054
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30799196
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30801338
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791784
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790224
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789886
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793770
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790096
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793694
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791180
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_10_01_16_0824215_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792074
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789812
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791784
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30801338
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793860
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789862
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791230
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789872
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789724
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789938
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792046
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793648
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791180
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789812
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792074
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789858
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790600
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790080
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790096
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793770
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790136
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790432
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789838
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791976
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30791192
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30795520
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30799196
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789786
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789886
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790224
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790684
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789720
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792800
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation10_01_16_0824215.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30789810
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790630
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30792054
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30790342
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment10_01_16_0824215.30793694
</commentlist>
</conversation>
