|
|
 
|
|
Author
|
Topic: Domains For FREE!
|
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-30-2000 07:44 PM
You can't get a free top-level domain (TLD). TLDs (.com,.net,.org,.edu,.gov,.mil, various country code TLDs, etc.) are currently being assigned by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN, http://www.icann.org/). The number of TLDs is expanded only rarely; the most recent expansion (which added such silly TLDs as .biz and .museum, neither of which really serves a useful purpose that isn't already being served by existing TLDs) required a non-refundable $50k deposit by any company which wanted to even propose a new TLD, as well as a substantial investment in hardware and network capacity in order to prove that they had the capacity to run the so-called "root nameservers" for the propsed TLDs.
If you're thinking of second-level domains (example.com, etc.), then you're probably also out of luck. It used to be possible to get a free name registration in the .us hierarchy, but I believe that this is no longer possible in most states. Before 1995, registrations in .com, .net, and .org were free, but they have cost money ever since then. Right now, you can register a second-level domain in .com, .net, or .org for something between $10 and $70. Be warned that you'll need to provide (or pay someone else to provide) at least two working "name servers" -- i.e. computers with full-time net connections and static IP addresses which will provide DNS information for your domain. These machines should be on separate networks and be geographically separate as well. Beyond that, you'll need to provide (or pay someone else to provide) whatever services you want to offer (mail, web, ftp, etc.) for that domain name.
There are companies which will provide 'virtual domain hosting' for $10-300/month, which usually includes a web site, mail service, and anonymous ftp service. Most of them provide pretty terrible service. 
Good luck. If you're interested in this sort of thing, the definitive book is "DNS and BIND," which is published by O'Reilly and Associates. It's pretty well written and covers everything you could ever want to know about how DNS works and how to configure name service on Unix machines (and NT machines running the NT port of BIND).
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Randy Stankey
Film God
Posts: 6539
From: Erie, Pennsylvania
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-30-2000 09:35 PM
I've been thinking about the domain name thing lately. There's been a proliferation of "dot-net" and "dot-org" that really should be "dot-com". Peeves me off!If those people who "keep" the internet were smart, they'd change what the "dot-XYZ"s mean and add a few more. Let's say you're a TV station... Your address should be your call letters and "dot-TV" (eg: "WXYZ.TV") Make one for radio stations as well. There could be a "dot-mag" for magazines and such. What I *REALLY* want is a "dot-prv" suffix that could be for us "normal" people. Essentially, it would be something like "randystankey.prv" (Somehow we have to figure out how to account for all the people with duplicate names like "John Smith". Where this is all going is to help people figure out who the hell they are dealing with when they go to a site. Is this "guy" trying to sell you something legitimate? or is he selling subscriptions to his porno-sight?
| IP: Logged
|
|
Scott Norwood
Film God
Posts: 8146
From: Boston, MA. USA (1774.21 miles northeast of Dallas)
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 12-31-2000 10:17 AM
The people who run the current TLDs got the rights to do so for historical reasons, as they were all created before the commercialization of the Internet (circa 1994/1995).
I sort of agree with Randy that TLDs for specific purposes are a good thing (though .tv is really supposed to belong to the Republic of Tuvalu, regardless of what the marketing propaganda says). Adding random new TLDs without specific requirements for who may register names in them, though, was a really bad move on the part of ICANN. Why have both .biz and .com? People will just register the same name in both TLDs, just as they do now with .com and .net (which are supposed to serve different purposes). My reason for being against .musuem is that museums (musea?) currently fit nicely into .org, which is not overcrowded.
There was a suggestion at one point to have .nom, for personal use, but I forget why that didn't work out.
The dumbest new TLD proposal that anyone took seriously was .web, which, thankfully, didn't pass muster to the ICANN bureaucrats. Tying a TLD to a specific technology would have been a terrible mistake. Just imagine if someone had come up with .gopher or .archie or something similiarly inane five years ago...
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All times are Central (GMT -6:00)
|
|
Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM
6.3.1.2
The Film-Tech Forums are designed for various members related to the cinema industry to express their opinions, viewpoints and testimonials on various products, services and events based upon speculation, personal knowledge and factual information through use, therefore all views represented here allow no liability upon the publishers of this web site and the owners of said views assume no liability for any ill will resulting from these postings. The posts made here are for educational as well as entertainment purposes and as such anyone viewing this portion of the website must accept these views as statements of the author of that opinion
and agrees to release the authors from any and all liability.
|
Home
I'm Cute! 
Printer-friendly view of this topic