In theory it can be shorter. Imagine good.cooking is shorter than goodcooking.com
But every one of these plays with all sorts of collisions of user expectations. "word.cloud.microsoft" is one of those URLs that will never look right to me, but is now a corporate staple.
It's like they found a money-making glitch. Insert a few new words into a list, make millions!
If they think TLDs need more variety, why not allow them to be anything already (save a few reserved TLDs)? That's what TLDs are starting to look like anyway.
I wonder if xyz.com is simply requesting TLDs based on domains their users enter, so cmo and con come from their users’ typos rather than malicious intent. It would be similar to how some registrars park domains when a user checks if a domain is available.
> and hence had a say in what can be registered on that TLD and by whom.
Not quite, assuming we're not talking about .brand, they have to make them available for purchase by the general public. However, they do get to dictate prices.
How many of these are companies that learnt from the 1990s and made sure they registered their own name/tradmarks etc rather than having to buy them off scalpers, even though they might have no plans to use them?
I'm exhausted by all of the new gTLDs at this point, opening them up to specific companies and organizations basically violated the entire purpose of a gTLD in the first place.
gTLDs didn't really ever have any meaningful purpose though, that is kinda the crux of the problem. Postel didn't bother enforcing any sort of policy of what goes where so the gTLDs became completely meaningless.
Does anyone know if subdomains on these gTLDs are required to be offered/sold publicly once acquired?
I don't understand how some of them can be granted to just one company when they are a "global" namespace, and then not allowed by the public to purchase or use.
I'm not talking about ones that are the name of a well known huge company that is unlikely to disappear.
There's like a 500 pages rulebook, but yes, if you're applying for a .genericterm, you have to make it available for purchase. Or in ICANN's terms, "closed generics" are prohibited.
Really? I’ve had my eye on a domain with a tld that a registry owns but does not make publicly available for purchase. It’s been that way since 2015. Amazon owns it. I guess if such a rule exists it’s a new rule, unfortunately.
Seems like this is the case for a few domains. .book, .author, and others got bought by Amazon who hasn’t really done anything with them?
I don't want to see any new domains, we rely on the domain as a source of security -- I know, it sucks, but it's all we have, to look at that browser address bar and confirm it is really mybank.com that is asking for your login details, and each time someone adds a TLD, you have the risk of mybank.us, or mybank.info or mybank.bank confusing users. Enough already with the TLD.
plenty are stupid or probably malicious but i'm happy for anything that will maybe convince people to stop making programs that check for a "valid" tld (they always have stale lists). i use an unusual ccTLD and i get told plenty that i've entered an invalid email
58 comments
[ 1.8 ms ] story [ 45.5 ms ] threadSure if AirBnb wants to administer .airbnb and charge a lot, whatever.
But `.bit` domains should be some bargain basement price if so many people want to run it.
eg: www.x
But every one of these plays with all sorts of collisions of user expectations. "word.cloud.microsoft" is one of those URLs that will never look right to me, but is now a corporate staple.
this is what the new gTLDs are.
None of this seem to have any rhyme or reason. What's the reason for these to exists, besides to raise funds for whorever is selling these?
As for the rest, meh, these could be "I have an idea for a domain" but the domain costs 250k
If they think TLDs need more variety, why not allow them to be anything already (save a few reserved TLDs)? That's what TLDs are starting to look like anyway.
that is pretty much exactly what they did?
.cmo/.con are particularly egregious
Not quite, assuming we're not talking about .brand, they have to make them available for purchase by the general public. However, they do get to dictate prices.
https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round...
Don't you dare, Coffee Danger LLC
I am NOT going to use .home.arpa.
Restricting them to specific entities seems against the spirit to me.
https://www.wired.com/story/icann-top-level-domains-meow/
Like `.link` is pretty cool but it's expensive because one of those personal-link-inbio companies created it and wants to cash in on it.
Just from scanning these, maybe:
* .air
* .bit
* .hub
* .iam
* .index (long but I love how universal it is)
* .lab
* .log
* .pod
* .port
* .self is really interesting, wonder if that would take off
* .sys
* .zen
like .playstation or .airbnb or .nike
I don't understand how some of them can be granted to just one company when they are a "global" namespace, and then not allowed by the public to purchase or use.
I'm not talking about ones that are the name of a well known huge company that is unlikely to disappear.
Seems like this is the case for a few domains. .book, .author, and others got bought by Amazon who hasn’t really done anything with them?
https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round...