New.net challenges ICANN monopoly

[tedloh]

Anyone waiting for a new tld?

New.net, funded by idealabs, is now taking registrations for a whole slew of tlds - the only catch is that ISPs must bind these new domain extensions.

Still, it was worth a shot.[nbsp][nbsp]I spent $150 on new names.

Would like to hear other opinions about these new options...

http://www.new.net
------------------
Ted (Chief Do-It-All)
Got2Bet.com - The Net's Winner's Circle
http://www.got2bet.com
ted@tygresystems.com

[Terra]

Oh Geeezzzz!

For example, if your New.net domain is www.pie.shop (http://www.pie.shop) and you have chosen self@pie.shop as your email address, you can use self@pie.shop.new.net as your temporary address until your email software is published. We will notify all domain name holders when that software is available. There is no way that I'm placing 'new.net' in all of my server resolvers as what they are doing is an *ugly* hack that will kill resolver performance...

Basically, it works as such:
$host pie.shop
app --> resolver
resolver --> do an IP lookup
not found --> find 'search' line
parse 'search' --> got 'futurequest.net new.net'
concatenate 'pie.shop.futurequest.net' --> lookup IP
not found -->
concatenate 'pie.shop.new.net' --> lookup IP
whistle a tune while waiting --> get lookup results
if success: send address to app
if fail: address not found

Since 'futurequest.net' is local to our DNS systems, then the overhead is minimal for 'success/fail' lookups...

However 'new.net' is *not* local and must reach across the net for any failed (1st/2nd) step lookups:
1st: pie.shop
2nd: pie.shop.futurequest.net
3rd: pie.shop.new.net

Creative idea, but nonetheless and Ugly DNS performance killer - especially if the 'new.net' DNS servers are either:
a) slow/sluggish
b) offline

My whole goal with DNS is to break dependencies like this in order to provide maximum performance and reliability...[nbsp][nbsp]I can fix our DNS servers if they break - but I sure as heck can't fix theirs...

In short: .shop needs to be a recognized and official .tld served properly from the root name servers...

--
Terra
--What did you do last week???[nbsp][nbsp]Your servers are so slow now - please have it fixed by yesterday!!!--
FutureQuest

[Tatuu]

Just by reading an article on them in Wired, I got the impression their plan is to get such a significant portion of web users to be "New.net Enabled" that people like TeRRa would have to cave in. :( Unless they make a deal with Microsoft (to be included in Explorer) or AOL, it won't catch on.

I had to fight the urge not to buy those names yesterday...

[tedloh]

That is exactly the impression I got - and based on that scenario I could NOT pass up the names I wanted.

If not, I'm out $150 - would've been a lot of money a year ago but now I make enough to take these calculated risks.

However - my impression is that it is designed more to force ICANN to either QUICKLY devise a system to handle consumer demand or else perhaps buy up new.net than actually getting ISPs and web hosts to bind DNS - which they all hate - and also is not consistent (some lousy places out there won't do anything - at least Terra is upfront and on top of the situation.[nbsp][nbsp]There's a difference between "too lazy" and "won't".)
------------------
Ted (Chief Do-It-All)
Got2Bet.com - The Net's Winner's Circle
http://www.got2bet.com
ted@tygresystems.com

[waptized]

This new.net site is really quite funny. Reminds me of the three stooges... excepted teleported 75 years into the future.[nbsp][nbsp]I thought their poll page was particularly funny when the votes for .futurequest outnumbered the votes for .church as a TLD (someones been stuffing the ballot boxes again :) )

Really, this idea that there's a shortage of domain names is the last remaining vestige of the .com hype.[nbsp][nbsp]There are truckloads of good domain names going abandoned after a 1-2 year registration period.[nbsp][nbsp]

Plus there are VIRGIN FIELDS of country code TLDs just sitting there waiting for you net-heads to plunder.... hmmmm about 150 TLDs and I'm not just talking the .tv and
.cc domains (which are good only because of the HYPE MACHINE continues to make them so).

Why don't you try something off the beaten trail:
[nbsp].am[nbsp][nbsp](hey it might be wireless!)
[nbsp].ph[nbsp][nbsp](ummm what every redblooded single guy wants from a girl)
[nbsp].ag[nbsp][nbsp](German corporate form - Antigua country code)
[nbsp].nu[nbsp][nbsp](...and improved (or maybe just a number) )

c'mon guys, a domain name is only as good as the bit of Madison Ave that you put into it, do you really want to be a boring .com?[nbsp][nbsp]

If you have any questions on .ph, I've got first hand experience registering there.

Robert

[Jeff]

What a pain it would be to try to promote one of those domains which will be down for so many potential visitors.[nbsp][nbsp]If even 10% cannot reach your URL, it's not worth having IMOH just because of the "well, I guess they went out of business" result.[nbsp][nbsp]Not to mention whether or not search engines will like to list sites which cause errors for some visitors.[nbsp][nbsp]But, I suppose they might be worth a fortune in a few years if they do get in by force ("grandfathering"), as .web may in time (hopefully).
[This message has been edited by Jeff (edited 03-12-01@11:50 pm)]

[Tatuu]

I thought their poll page was particularly funny when the votes for .futurequest outnumbered the votes for .church as a TLD (someones been stuffing the ballot boxes again)I didn't do it. :P

Some one else started .AreBelongToUs , too. :)