Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Earth The Internet

Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain 223

Posted by Soulskill
from the it's-always-about-the-green dept.
Peace Corps Library writes "BBC reports that two rival environmental groups are lining up supporters to try to take control of the new .eco domain aimed at green groups. In March, former US vice president Al Gore backed a bid by the California group Dot Eco to operate the .eco TLD, but now a Canadian environmental group known as Big Room has launched a competing bid to manage it. 'We're two different applicants with two different business ideas. Ours is to sell domain names to raise funds for organizations who can effect change,' says Minor Childers, co-founder of Dot Eco. The group has already entered into contracts with its supporters — such as the Sierra Club and the Alliance for Climate Protection — to give away 57% of its profits from sales. Big Room also plans to generate money from the sale of .eco domain names to fund sustainability projects around the world, however, the consortium, which includes WWF International and Green Cross International — founded in 1993 by former Soviet president Mikhail Gorbachev, also believes that .eco could be used as a labeling system to endorse companies with green credentials. Despite having differences about a model for .eco, both groups will 'definitely have to sit down' together at some point, says Childers. 'We could be one of the biggest contributors to environmental causes anywhere in the world.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Rival Green Groups Bid To Snatch .eco Domain

Comments Filter:
  • by duamtef (1615005) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:05AM (#29002559)

    Forgive my cynicism but in my experience, humans are not altruistic at all. Like monkeys, we do what we do because it benefits us.

    While I fully support green causes for my own selfish reasons (my children), I am skeptical about the motivations of "green" groups. They seem to be using green as a fashion statement and an identity, and don't seem all that motivated to be effective.

    But if given a chance to push us around for not being green... they're good at that.

    Can't we just create the "Green Police" that ecosopher Pentti Linkola recommended, and be done with these irksome charities?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      You're right. Groups like the Sierra Club and World Wildlife Federation have never shown themselves to actually be about conserving the environment or wildlife... *rolls eyes*
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by sycodon (149926)

        And "Green groups" can't even agree on what's "green".

        Nukes? ...Ahhh, were all gonna die!.
        Wind? ...Causes medical problems and kills birds.
        Solar? ...Heavy metals in the manufacturing process.
        Oil?...yeah, right.
        Harness ocean waves. ..."Doesn't that take energy from the environment?" ...from a real Slashdotter.
        GeoThermal?...causes earthquakes, kills the geysers.

        And you want them to agree on managing a domain?

        • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

          by bjourne (1034822)
          How nice of you to let one random, anonymous slashdotter asking a stupid question stand as a spokesperson for all green movements.
          • by Cylix (55374)

            I believe he had a point.

            I think it's time we spread some good ol fashioned fud.

            Our new campaign slogan, "Stop stealing energy from the environment."

            Down with harnessing the oceans!

        • by WCguru42 (1268530)

          Nukes...Wind...Solar...Oil... GeoThermal...Harness ocean waves. ..."Doesn't that take energy from the environment?"

          That is indeed a true statement, not just for wave power but for every last thing that any person, animal, plant or thing does. Well, to be precise, it's all just conversions so maybe it's not taking it away but it's making it into something else.

        • by BrentH (1154987) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @12:44PM (#29003209)
          So because a group is actually engaged in internal discussion, you will not consider its chief point at all? That's stupid. The entire reason that science works is because of this internal debate. We will never know anything 100% sure, that's why it's called the real world. Be very afraid of unified fronts, I've never seen any stand the test of time. Yes, the Greens have a lot of brainless zealots, but I assume adults are smart enough to recognize and ignore zealots.

          And sure, these are businesses in the end as well. Seems they both mean to make a profit off this, so naturally they compete, what's so crazy about that?
          • No (Score:5, Insightful)

            by Sycraft-fu (314770) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @03:57PM (#29004381)

            The reason we deride them is because they are all about problems, not about solutions. It is easy to point out the problems in life. Why? Because everything has a cost. Anything you do, there's a cost to, there's a downside. As such, no matter what choice you make, you can always say "This is the problem with that choice." That isn't hard, nor is it productive.

            What is needed is to weigh the costs, and by costs we me economic and non-economic, of various solutions and then attempt to choose which one gives the most benefits with the least costs. They ALL have costs, downsides, that isn't the issue. The issue is which is the best.

            Well green groups are notoriously bad for simply not caring. They just hate on all solutions. They say you are doing X poorly. So you say ok, well here's a way we can address that. They then hate on the new solution. They are whiners, not problem solvers.

            The only thing they ever seem to agree is a solution is to give lots and lots of money to green organizations. They don't have a clear goal as to what will be done with it that'll make an improvement, but they need lots of money. That seems more than a little self serving.

            That's why many people give them crap. If they want more people to take them seriously they need to grow up. They can't just point out problems, they have to start coming up with solutions. Also those have to be real solutions, not "We should all go back to preindustrial society, never mind that 90%+ of humans have to die for that to happen." So long as they just hate on any real solution, people are going to keep ignoring them.

            • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

              by Magic5Ball (188725)

              I agree, but only to the extent that you're describing the media-whoring environmentalist factions to which the Western Anglosphere is popularly exposed. For example, the International Institute for Sustainable Development addresses the same China/e-waste problem (http://www.iisd.org/trade/china/markets_research.asp) that Greenpeace does, but IISD provides substantial and achievable recommendations which are not reducible to simply stop, and have street cred among international organizations and businesses.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by lennier (44736)

              "Well green groups are notoriously bad for simply not caring. They just hate on all solutions. "

              No, it's more that like Richard Stallman they keep rudely pointing out whenever someone proposes a 'solution' that is in fact a bigger problem because it violates the laws of physics.

              The free market doesn't like to hear that! The free market knows you can just keep drilling for oil forever! The free market knows cabbages grow just fine on oil-based herbicides and pesticides and hormones! The free market knows fre

        • Since when does "a real Slashdotter" equate a "Green group"?

          I do, however, take your point. It ain't easy being green. The rules are complex and the details are subject to rapid, radical change. That's primarily because, when it comes down to it, we don't really know how to be green. It's an optimisation problem with ill-defined parameters. We want to do as little harm to the environment as possible, while at the same time, maintaining some level of quality of life. And the expectations for both change from

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by damburger (981828)
          Yup. I consider myself an environmentalist, but I don't go near most environmental groups because they oppose nuclear power, which is absolutely vital for a society after fossil fuels. Wind turbines and organic farming aren't going to sustain human society globally, regardless of them giving warm fuzzies to certain people in the west.
      • by sumdumass (711423)

        Well, the Sierra club was thought to have been started by a bunch of lawyers and land barons who wanted to lock everyone's land out but their through conservation efforts and lawsuits so when a city went to expand, it created an artificial shortage of land that they benefited from. The conspiracy goes that this is the reason why the Sierra club's member ship and leaders are all closely kept secrets.

        As for the World Widlife federation, the most notable thing I can remember from them is getting the WWF wrestl

      • by mrmeval (662166)

        They are an organization and as an organization rule #1 is self preservation. What ever other rules they deem necessary they will implement after that has been taken care of. Otherwise the organization will cease to exist. They do what they do to perpetuate their existence, all other activities have to be secondary.

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by Ironsides (739422)

      Can't we just create the "Green Police" that ecosopher Pentti Linkola recommended, and be done with these irksome charities?

      I sincerely hope that is sarcasm [wikipedia.org]. Especially when these guys [wikipedia.org] seem to be some of his inspiration.

    • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:16AM (#29002635)

      Can't we just create the "Green Police" that ecosopher Pentti Linkola recommended, and be done with these irksome charities?

      I think they're called the EPA.

      The unfortunate truth is that only so much can be done by political activism and passing laws and funding bureaucracy. What really needs to be done, on a larger scale, is train or corporte leaders to understand the business case for environmental responsibility. There is one, although many refuse to see it because it does require investment.

      Furthermore, the real environmentalists are the scientists and engineers that come up with better, safer ways to manufacture goods and dispose of them, and who convince their corporate overlords to put their dollars there. All the external activism in the world won't convince a hard-nosed businessman to burn cash on making his company produce less waste: it usually takes someone on the inside. The thing is, those people never get much credit: unsung heroes they are.

      • by Z00L00K (682162)

        The EPA only has control in the US.

        And whatever - when there are TLD:s on the net for political groups then you may want to have .fascism .nazism .liberalism .g-marxism .communism and .capitalism just to name a few to add to the pot.

        • by BrentH (1154987)
          I say this: get rid of TLD's altogether, or allow anyone any TLD. This rediculous system we're having now makes no sense. Why'd I wanna postfix everything with a .com, .eu, .nl, .tv? And I if I then for some reason must postfix my domain, then I'd like to arbitrarily choose which one please.
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by jcr (53032)

      we do what we do because it benefits us.

      Or at least because we believe it does.

      -jcr

    • by BrentH (1154987)
      Just as buying a mercedes works in the sense that with some people you'll gain social status, selling green shizzle works on other people. Guess what, it's what phenomena like fashion and hypes are ALL ABOUT. Being effective in this sense is surely in their interest, just as it's in mercedes' interest to perpetuate the idea that mercs are 'better'.

      But here's what you're missing: of course people arent altruistic. And people are in the end selfish too. Simplifying societies down to such a level however sh
    • But, but, but - if AL GORE says so, it's GOTTA be so!!

      Actually, I agree with you. Gorey Al couldn't make enough political capital with the green weenie crap, so now he's shooting for some plain old filthy lucre capital. Screw him, and all of his green freinds. They are milking the ecology for all it's worth, at the expense of all the little people who don't know any better.

      All their blather about global warming wasn't enough to change the auto industry, or buyer's preferences. Only now, when our economi

    • by greg_barton (5551) *

      Forgive my cynicism but in my experience, humans are not altruistic at all. Like monkeys, we do what we do because it benefits us.

      I'll forgive your cynicism, but you've got to work [stanford.edu] on [youtube.com] your [findarticles.com] ignorance. [newscientist.com]

    • by Ihmhi (1206036)

      Like monkeys, we do what we must because we can.

      FTFY.

  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:08AM (#29002577)

    ...'cause Al Gore invented both the Internet and ecology!

    • . . . for revenge!

      He is still mega-pissed that he didn't become the President of the United States, so he is planning to get his revenge . . . on the whole world!

      First he mesmerized folks around the world with his global warming movie. Now, he wants a TLD, which will enable him to wield even more control!

      What's next? Death for us all . . . by snoo snoo!?!?!

      . . . and where did they get this 57% number . . . from a ketchup bottle? With a keystone shaped label . . . obviously the Freemasons are also i

  • by ScrewMaster (602015) * on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:08AM (#29002579)
    organizations should have claim to an entire TLD? Even if they "sit down together", that's still an awful lot of authority being placed in the hands of a very few people. I suspect that there are some other outfits that might want to have a say in this.
  • Silly... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:10AM (#29002595) Journal
    The further you get from .com the less the domain matters(at least among non-country coded TLDs). .com is the best, .net and .org are ok, things like .gov are niche, and pretty much anything else is either a once-off gimmick(pidgin.im is clever; but the world's set of IM programs might consume a few dozen domains, total) or just a slum domain that only search engine crawlers will find directly.

    "Green" is all the rage at the moment(or, at least, greenwashing is); but I don't see that changing the basic fact that, for anything besides highly recognisable .com/.net/.org addresses, the only thing that matters is whether you have a decent rank on common search engines.
    • .GOV can come in handy now and then, as well as .EDU. But yeah, the rest are sort of useless for the most part.
    • by Zoxed (676559)

      > for anything besides highly recognisable .com/.net/.org addresses, the only thing that matters is whether you have a decent rank on common search engines.

      Definitely not the case for me: if I am looking for a UK based supplier I will often search for the product and site:.uk. Same for a German supplier I use .de.

  • No one cares (Score:3, Insightful)

    by BadAnalogyGuy (945258) <BadAnalogyGuy@gmail.com> on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:13AM (#29002631)

    There are lots of TLDs that no one ever thinks about and hardly ever use.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_domains [wikipedia.org]

    When was the last time you visited a .biz site? Have you ever found a position using the .jobs TLD?

    How cool is it that the TLD for mobile devices is longer than the usual 3 letter TLD?

    Found a lawyer or doctor using the .pro TLD lately? Could you point someone to a good travel agent on the .travel TLD?

    Face it, there are only 5 real, non-national TLDs: .com, .org, .edu, .Net, and .gov. All the others are just a waste of time.

    • by sadler121 (735320) <msadler@gmail.com> on Sunday August 09, 2009 @12:13PM (#29002997) Homepage

      Which is why we should deprecate them and turn toward country level TLD's. Let individual countries have control over what domains are allowable. If a company, say Google, has a server in the US, their .com name would end up as google.com.us, if they have a server in Germany, it would be google.com.de. A government web site in the US would be congress.gov.us or in Germany, bundestag.gov.de.

      This could even extend to political organizations with in a State. So, in the US, fl.gov.us would be the root to all of the Florida state government web sites, where as ut.gov.us would be for Utah's state government.

      There are plenty more examples, but it comes down to de-centralizing control over DNS to the lowest level of political representation.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by rswail (410017)

      .gov is "non-national"? Since when?

    • Re: .jobs (Score:5, Funny)

      by witherstaff (713820) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @01:00PM (#29003311) Homepage
      I am disappointed that www.steve.jobs doesn't resolve.
    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Face it, there are only 5 real, non-national TLDs: .com, .org, .edu, .Net, and .gov. All the others are just a waste of time.

      I occasionally see ".info" used, actually. Not very often, that's true, but it does get used, whereas I've never seen anyone use .biz, much less .museum or .aero or .jobs.

      ".int" is also sometimes used, although the only example I can think of right now is http://www.eu.int .

      And finally, since you're including ".gov" and ".edu", don't forget about ".mil", either. Chances are the average person won't use it as often as the other two, but it's definitely there, and it's very much being used.

  • by ZackSchil (560462) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:21AM (#29002663)

    If organizations with "green" or conversationalist initiatives as basically your sole customers, why would you charge more than you need to for a domain name and then hand some of the profits back to the same set of companies? In this case, wouldn't it be best to just lower your prices and run as a straight non-profit?

    Or for all the giving back bullshit, is this yet another poorly conceived attempt at cashing in on the popularity of the green movement? Who am I kidding? This yet another poorly conceived attempt at cashing in on the popularity of the green movement.

    • Yeah, I was wondering something similar - who gets the other 43%? And where did the number 57 come from?

    • by dkf (304284)

      "green" or conversationalist initiatives

      You mean the ones where they talk about things a lot but never actually do anything practical for the environment? Sounds about right.

  • by rsmith-mac (639075) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:22AM (#29002669)

    Ours is to sell domain names to raise funds for organizations who can effect change

    Just how many domains do they think they're going to be selling? At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Vellmont (569020)


      At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away.

      Competitive rates compared to what? .com? I just don't think that's a competitor. In this case there's really no competitory, it's a monopoly.

      All these new TLDs serve nothing more than either vanity, or marketing purposes. .com .net and .org don't provide that same marketing/vanity. I do think you're right that this is a niche market and they won't

    • by rs79 (71822)

      "Just how many domains do they think they're going to be selling? At competitive rates you'd have to sell tens of thousands just to keep a single person employed to maintain the TLD, never mind having some money to give away."

      Actually you have to sell 100,000 just to cover the filing fees. And that's without paying for any infrastructure or people.

      Here's how the other new tlds have fared so far:
      http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboards/engine.swf?dashID=159&serverURL=http://idashboard.icann.org/idashboa [icann.org]

  • by WheelDweller (108946) <WheelDwellerNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:24AM (#29002685)

    Anyone here old enough to remember the first ecology movement? It, too, was lame, with it's own lame, green flag. Just green-n-white bars like the US flag, but a silly character in the middle of the field.

    Being good stewards, yes. Endocrinating young children into fairy tales, no. Things like Captain Planet get under my skin. The science they point to is grey at best, and it all serves political parties.

    I mean, whether it's hotter than usual, or colder than usual, BOTH are a sign of ManMadeGlobalWarming(TM) for which money must be sent to Washington. That's not science, that's religion!

    • by ZackSchil (560462)

      Captain Planet served no one at all, except maybe those who were directly involved in making the show. Not politicians, not the people, and definitely not the planet.

      All the villains in Captain Planet wanted to trash the planet for no reason at all. They'd build factories that did nothing but pump (glowing green) toxic waste into the ocean. If that show wanted to really get things done, it would have vilified the real culprits in ruining the planet. I don't mean anyone who burns more than their share of fos

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sumdumass (711423)

        Actually, the message was that all factories pollute and all CEO's investors whatever are out to destroy the planet if they can make a dollar.

        You may not see it as out to serve anyone but it was. Just read a few comment from slashdot about how those kids are indoctrinated into believing all corporations are evil intent on destroying the environment. There are quite a few of those idiots around here and that sort of proves his point.

        • by weave (48069) *

          Actually, the message was that all factories pollute and all CEO's investors whatever are out to destroy the planet if they can make a dollar.

          Ah, it's true. Because they need to remain competitive. If a business voluntarily spends a boatload of money to clean up emissions and their competitors don't, they'll go out of business. That's why, at least, environmental regulations level the playing field among competitors (which falls apart when this doesn't happen in other countries though).

          I'm also old enoug

          • by sumdumass (711423) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @01:05PM (#29003331) Journal

            Ah, it's true. Because they need to remain competitive. If a business voluntarily spends a boatload of money to clean up emissions and their competitors don't, they'll go out of business. That's why, at least, environmental regulations level the playing field among competitors (which falls apart when this doesn't happen in other countries though).

            No it is not true. It may have been at one point in time but hasn't been true for longer then Captain Planet has been on the air. That was because of regulations too.

            I'm also old enough to remember when cap and trade was a conservative answer to prohibitive environmental regulations. It would give incentives to companies to voluntarily cut emissions so they could sell unused credits to pollute to other companies on the open market that might not be able to do that sort of clean up. The government would just set an overall target level.

            Then you are old enough to have questionable memory. This was never a plan offered by the republicans. There was some talk about limiting Sulfur emissions a while back in a manner similar to cap and trade but it was never a party line stance and never as far reaching as the current debacle has gone.

            Seems that now Democrats are pushing the idea, it's suddenly evil (although I suspect some of that comes from classifying carbon dioxide as a pollutant, but the conservative groups should say that instead of billing the "cap and trade" concept as flawed -- it *was* their own creation after all)

            Ideas are different in minor details but the democrat's plan would cause far more harm with little to no results. You need to focus on the details or end up passing a bail out plan that pays Executive bonuses just to find out that you are the congress critter who put that into the law at the request of the administration after both of you are criticizing it. When a democrat congressman stands on the floor ridiculing all of the calls to read a fucking bill before it get voted on by saying you would need two days and two lawyers just to understand it, then there is a problem. A serious problem.

            In short, the details are important and if your stuck on the concept, then you might as well trade in a Jaguar for a ford pinto because the concept is the same even though the details are completely different. I know most democrats do not read the bills they vote into law because they don't think they have two days or two attorneys, but at least lets find out what is being pushed. And yes, the Cap and Trade they are pushing is a nightmare for the US economy. They know it and wouldn't even add three simple exemptions to the bill that would halt it if unemployment went up more then so much from the already high 2009 rates, if gas got over $5 a gallon or if inflation skyrocketed to a certain point above the 1008 levels. They know it will happen and see those amendments which I would call reasonable safeguards as ways to defeat the cap and trade.

            Say whatever you want, but you cannot deny that. If unemployment wasn't going to soar by design, that amendment should have went in, if inflation wasn't going to soar, that amendment would have got in. And if they didn't expect gas prices to soar, that amendment would have gotten in. But they do expect all that to happen which is why they wouldn't place any safe guards against it in the legislation and if you think that is acceptable, you are a fool.

            • by weave (48069) *
              So the environmental regs passed 30-40 years ago that Republicans were against are no longer needed now because the air is better and because industry will just do the right thing voluntarily now even though they didn't 30-40 years ago. Yeah. OK.
              • by sumdumass (711423)

                I don't believe anyone said that. Could you point out where or are you living in some fantasy land where if someone doesn't agree with you they are plotting against you?

                Please, lets keep the conversation to what was actually said and not what you want to think was said.

                • by weave (48069) *

                  You said the following statement is not true and no longer true. "Ah, it's true. Because they need to remain competitive. If a business voluntarily spends a boatload of money to clean up emissions and their competitors don't, they'll go out of business. That's why, at least, environmental regulations level the playing field among competitors (which falls apart when this doesn't happen in other countries though)."

                  Tell me how a business can remain competitive if it introduces costs associated with volunta

                  • by sumdumass (711423)

                    You said the following statement is not true and no longer true.

                    You should finish reading, I said it's not true and hasn't been for a long time due to regulation.

                    Tell me how a business can remain competitive if it introduces costs associated with voluntary emission limits when its competitors don't have to, and thereby can then undercut them and eventually drive them out of business.

                    By refining the process that results in the emissions- what ever they are. You can come up with not only cleaner but mor

              • because today it's cool to be green, those soccer mom's go out of their way to buy green products; they may not give up their high ground clearence SUVs untill junior is out of the car seat so they don't have to bend their fat butts over to buckle him in, but everything else is green. Stick a "green" on your product and get Oprah to mention you and your golden.

        • I'm not 100% sure it was captain planet. The culture against corporations has been mounting for years. Hell, even Roald Dahl is rife with anti-wealth sentiments, which can trivially be extended to corporations.

          And I suppose the fact that there are plenty of CEOs in the limelight who do put profit ahead of the environment doesn't help the matter.

          • by sumdumass (711423)

            And yes, those CEOs and Corporations are far and few in between in comparison of all the legit companies. But because of Captain Planet, all corporations are evil polluters to some who cannot really support their claims outside of pointing to the few in the limelight.

        • by rs79 (71822)

          "You may not see it as out to serve anyone but it was. Just read a few comment from slashdot about how those kids are indoctrinated into believing all corporations are evil intent on destroying the environment. There are quite a few of those idiots around here and that sort of proves his point."

          You mean like Bhopal?
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LiWlvBro9eI [youtube.com]

          • by sumdumass (711423)

            What is your point? one action by one company doesn't make it an industry standard. Or are you one of those Captain Planet people?

      • by rs79 (71822)

        " If that show wanted to really get things done, it would have vilified the real culprits in ruining the planet. "

        Like the US government?

        http://www.freep.com/article/20090807/BUSINESS01/908070382 [freep.com]

    • by curunir (98273) *

      Anyone here old enough to remember the first ecology movement?

      You mean the one where, among other things, John Muir convinced president Roosevelt to set aside the land that's now our national parks? I'm guessing there aren't too many people around who are old enough to remember that, but I'd say that movement was pretty damn successful.

      Or was there one before that that you're referring to?

  • by cashman73 (855518) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:26AM (#29002701) Journal
    I'm not sure if I like the idea of handing out a TLD that is basically going to support a groups in a particular cause. In the .eco realm, it seems to me like .org would work just fine, and it's broad enough to be all-encompassing of many points of view. Speaking of which, I think Wikipedia addresses this quite well with their Neutral Point of View policy. Domains should be the same way.

    On the flipside, it would be kind of nice to have a .nut domain for all the right-wing neocons and nutjobs out there. It would be easier to just block anything in that TLD,... ;-)

    • On the flipside, it would be kind of nice to have a .nut domain for all the right-wing neocons and nutjobs out there. It would be easier to just block anything in that TLD

      It says much that you only wish to block the whackos and nutjobs that you (by inference) disagree with. (Which is also why the .eco TLD shouldn't be run by any but a neutral authority. The possibilities of it being run by the Thought Police are fairly high.)

      • by cashman73 (855518)
        It says much that you only wish to block the whackos and nutjobs that you (by inference) disagree with. (Which is also why the .eco TLD shouldn't be run by any but a neutral authority. The possibilities of it being run by the Thought Police are fairly high.)

        I was more joking about that,... though, for that matter, you could throw all the socialist websites into .soc, all the communist websites into .com -- Oh, wait, that one already exists and is somewhat "anti-communist" as it is. Oops,... ;-)

    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by rs79 (71822)

      " I'm not sure if I like the idea of handing out a TLD that is basically going to support a groups in a particular cause. In the .eco realm, it seems to me like .org would work just fine, and it's broad enough to be all-encompassing of many points of view. Speaking of which, I think Wikipedia addresses this quite well"

      It's interesting to compare the difference between Wikipedia and ICANN, who administer these top level domains.

      Wikipedia is 10 poeple in a office, who work in New York and stay there. They re

  • by nurb432 (527695) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:33AM (#29002747) Homepage Journal

    Will anyone even know its there, or care?

  • I'd like to see Mr Gore's financial connections to Dot Eco.

    See, your message of world-saving altruism is corrupted when everything you're preaching ends up somehow making you the big $$ personally.

  • by Dr_Ken (1163339) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @11:55AM (#29002869) Journal
    As in $$$$$. Sheesh. The usual pattern: From cause to movement to racket. And then the bureaucracy takes it all over. Repeat as needed.
  • by Al Al Cool J (234559) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @12:53PM (#29003255)

    Instead of creating new domains, they should be recycling old ones.


  • # dig @a.root-servers.net eco ns

    [...]

    ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NXDOMAIN, id: 54643

    [...]
  • No, seriously. [supportdoteco.com]

    Given his history I suppose it's reasonable that he's against the burning of carbon-based fuels. Still, I'm not entirely comfortable with the idea of my nice comfy eco-friendly hammock being officially endorsed by the dream-ripper.

  • ...umberto.eco
    • You can, but first you'll have to find your way through a clever maze of forms while hallucinating.

  • And I didn't even know that the World Wrestling Federation [wikipedia.org] was green!!
  • ...and that is .eco is already spoken for [publicroot.org]:

    Top-Level Domain: ECO
    Domain ID: DW-ECO
    Root Administrator: dotWORLDS [DW]
    Zone contact: domainmgt@dotworlds.net

    NS1.ECO. A 72.

  • by bbtom (581232) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @03:35PM (#29004251) Homepage Journal

    I've been watching the farce that is the new ICANN process. They seem to think that the only test for a new top-level domain suffix is that it will make money for the corporate owner.

    I think it's bullshit. The new domains they have added so far - .aero, .coop, .museum, .biz, .info, .pro, .jobs, .tel - all suck. Okay, I quite like to be able to type http://british.museum/ [british.museum] - but .biz and .info are pretty much used exclusively by make-money-fast scammers, phishers, scammers and other assorted lowlife who like it because it costs a third of the price of a real domain name. I can think of only a small handful of .info domain names that are actually legit - http://rdfa.info/ [rdfa.info] comes to mind. .aero? What the fuck? Are Boeing and Delta Airlines really having difficulty with domain squatting? .tel and .jobs are complete bullshit. I mean, if you suddenly decide that you want to know the telephone number of your local Starbucks, are you more likely to (a) go to Google and type in "Starbucks Manhattan" or (b) type in manhattan.starbucks.tel. Same for jobs. If you decide you want to get a job working for BigCompany, you go to their website and you click on 'jobs' or 'careers' or whatever. Or you Google. You don't think "Oh, I better go to BigCompany.jobs."

    We've also had .mobi, which is completely stupid. The current generation of mobile devices - iPhone, Android G1, Pre, Blackberry - are becoming increasingly capable of showing normal websites. And rather than registering .mobi, most sites seem to think m.whatever.com (for generic mobile: some are also doing i.whatever.com for iPhone-specific sites, and back in the day people had pda.whatever.com for PDA specific sites, wap.whatever.com for stuff written in WML and served as WAP content - I'm sure in Japan, there's probably i-mode specific subdomains or pathnames).

    But now ICANN seem to want to make it so that anyone can have a TLD if they pay. There have already been people suggesting .nyc, .london, .paris and other city names (hint: .us, .uk, .fr). Big companies are thinking about putting in bids for their trademarks: I've seriously seen it suggested that someone like Michael Jordan register .jordan, then can have clothes.jordan, shoes.jordan, basketball.jordan and so on.

    As for .eco: the only justification for it seems to be that the sale of .eco domains could be used for some useful social end - sell domains, plant trees, reverse global warming or whatever. Okay. Great. That's not nearly enough justification. Hosts that are going to want a .eco domain are either commercial entities (use .com), non-commercial entities (use .org), country-specific domains (use the country code TLD), government (use .gov or your local government national TLD - .gov.uk or whatever), or maybe academic (use .edu or .ac.uk or your country's national TLD).

    ICANN are corporate whores and have proven they are completely untrustworthy. The domain name system needs to have a Revenge of the Nerds moment. We need to take it back and put it under the careful guidance of an IETF-like body who will decide TLD decisions on the basis of the needs of the Internet community, in an open and democratic process, rather than a process where you basically turn up with a wheelbarrow full of cash and a dumb idea and then get proclaimed owner of a new TLD. TLDs need to be distributed by IETF-like wise beardy Internet veterans rather than assholes who think the

  • 57%? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by nog_lorp (896553) on Sunday August 09, 2009 @05:36PM (#29005037)

    They are going to give 57% of the profits. 57% of the profit from selling property that they are saying ICANN should give them? They better give far, far more than that if they expect any sympathy.

    Not to mention, this use is pretty idiotic. The TLD name should have some relation to what sites using it are actually for.

(1) Never draw what you can copy. (2) Never copy what you can trace. (3) Never trace what you can cut out and paste down.

Working...