More applications should mean they have to compete on price tbh.
Sure 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.
input_sh 13 hours ago [-]
That's exactly how it works. For example, Google's winning bid for .app ended up being $25m.
skrtskrt 11 hours ago [-]
I mean compete at least in part on the price that end-users will be charged
irs 13 hours ago [-]
added a new sort option for this
varun_ch 14 hours ago [-]
so many TLDs that seem to be exploiting similarity to existing ones?
.cmo/.con are particularly egregious
sheept 13 hours ago [-]
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.
JoshTriplett 13 hours ago [-]
That would be an absurd amount of money to spend on typosquatting.
esseph 7 hours ago [-]
Depends on how much you could make, and I imagine quite a bit.
sneak 13 hours ago [-]
Yes, these should be banned.
bhaney 14 hours ago [-]
> .lan
Don't you dare, Coffee Danger LLC
skrtskrt 13 hours ago [-]
Seriously that is the sort of thing that could get you hunted down by angry nerds.
I am NOT going to use .home.arpa.
edoceo 12 hours ago [-]
My home network is "example.net", nobody messes with example.
ASalazarMX 12 hours ago [-]
That's it, I'm moving our company to corp.com.
gregdotca 13 hours ago [-]
Very nice! Some more sorting and filtering options would be handy, and some more view options, so each TLD doesn't take up half the screen when it has a lot of applicants.
PS - Your Source link is a 404.
13 hours ago [-]
irs 13 hours ago [-]
thanks. just added more views and filters now.
sixdimensional 13 hours ago [-]
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.
input_sh 13 hours ago [-]
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.
snailmailman 12 hours ago [-]
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?
peesem 12 hours ago [-]
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
yathern 14 hours ago [-]
Very useful! I found this article a really good summary of the gtld situation:
NSFW warning please. I clicked on this link while my screen was visible to to others and freaked out.
esseph 7 hours ago [-]
Because of the word porn?
skrtskrt 14 hours ago [-]
I have been looking for an expansion of TLDs that are short, have a decent ring for self-hosting stuff, and don't sound too scammy.
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
embedding-shape 14 hours ago [-]
Finally .scam might be something for all us scammer, I'm tired of getting mixed up with a bunch of honest-looking people.
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?
etatester 14 hours ago [-]
The cat is out of the bag. TLDs are now the domains of the rich. Why not have .taylorswift? It's just 250k https://gtlds.fyi/names/taylorswift
As for the rest, meh, these could be "I have an idea for a domain" but the domain costs 250k
tecleandor 12 hours ago [-]
Just found that "Charleston Road Registry Inc." is the legal name for Google's registry...
devmor 14 hours ago [-]
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.
zokier 12 hours ago [-]
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.
devmor 11 hours ago [-]
Not officially, but the name "Generic TLDs" was coined to differentiate them as for general use, in contrast to country-specific TLDs at the time.
Restricting them to specific entities seems against the spirit to me.
lokoj 12 hours ago [-]
The only purpose I'm familiar with is raising ICANN's operating budget. I'd imagine another round of auctions means another budget expansion.
pasc1878 14 hours ago [-]
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?
gelstudios 13 hours ago [-]
i'd like to see this (filter / exclude) the dotBrand or brand-specific TLDs, as they are not open to the general public.
like .playstation or .airbnb or .nike
irs 13 hours ago [-]
thanks. added a "hide brands" filter now.
sixtyj 14 hours ago [-]
Every possible word can become a TLD :)
ASalazarMX 12 hours ago [-]
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.
zokier 12 hours ago [-]
> If they think TLDs need more variety, why not allow them to be anything already (save a few reserved TLDs)?
that is pretty much exactly what they did?
ASalazarMX 11 hours ago [-]
My bad then. Couldn't read the link because FortiGuard thinks it's risky.
Category: Spam URLs
Risk Level: High Risk
fooqux 14 hours ago [-]
Why limit yourself to just words? I'm hoping to get one of the single-letter domains on the new abcdefghijklmnopqrstuvwxyz TLD if I can afford it.
ASalazarMX 12 hours ago [-]
2036: Guys, read my newsletter at ASalazar.<MEXICO_FLAG>.<SMILEY>!
MarsIronPI 14 hours ago [-]
Am I the only one who's not a fan of these new, longer TLDs? IMO TLDs should be two or three characters. I'm not sure why I feel this way, but there's something unwieldy about a TLD like .cooking.
jnettome 14 hours ago [-]
What we really need is one char TLDs so we bring back WWW
eg: www.x
ronsor 12 hours ago [-]
www.x would be owned by Elon. Don't give him ideas.
ocdtrekkie 14 hours ago [-]
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.
OutOfHere 14 hours ago [-]
2 to 4 chars is a good range.
arccy 13 hours ago [-]
imagine it were shorter... like 0 characters.
this is what the new gTLDs are.
sneak 13 hours ago [-]
The auctioning off of the GTLD space for private gain is one of the most egregious and offensive public-private wealth transfer grafts of our century.
OutOfHere 14 hours ago [-]
Why are these TLDs so tightly bound to a specific organization? Why can't their registration be more open? Keeping them so locked down makes them useless. Or am I misunderstanding something?
majorchord 13 hours ago [-]
I thought TLDs were sponsored/registered by corporations, and hence had a say in what can be registered on that TLD and by whom.
input_sh 12 hours ago [-]
> 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.
sorry I didn't know that wasn't referring to the .brand gTLD
13 hours ago [-]
carefree-bob 13 hours ago [-]
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.
Sure 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.
.cmo/.con are particularly egregious
Don't you dare, Coffee Danger LLC
I am NOT going to use .home.arpa.
PS - Your Source link is a 404.
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://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
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
Restricting them to specific entities seems against the spirit to me.
like .playstation or .airbnb or .nike
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?
Category: Spam URLs
Risk Level: High Risk
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.
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...