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.
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.
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?
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
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
Suggestion: Allow the user to sort the list by number of applications.
Top five: .agent (13 applicants), .bit (11), .hub (10), .brand (10), .api (10)
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.
That's exactly how it works. For example, Google's winning bid for .app ended up being $25m.
I mean compete at least in part on the price that end-users will be charged
added a new sort option for this
so many TLDs that seem to be exploiting similarity to existing ones?
.cmo/.con are particularly egregious
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.
That would be an absurd amount of money to spend on typosquatting.
Yes, these should be banned.
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.
thanks. just added more views and filters now.
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?
> .lan
Don't you dare, Coffee Danger LLC
Seriously that is the sort of thing that could get you hunted down by angry nerds.
I am NOT going to use .home.arpa.
My home network is "example.net", nobody messes with example.
That's it, I'm moving our company to corp.com.
Very useful! I found this article a really good summary of the gtld situation:
https://www.wired.com/story/icann-top-level-domains-meow/
NSFW warning please. I clicked on this link while my screen was visible to to others and freaked out.
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
Just found that "Charleston Road Registry Inc." is the legal name for Google's registry...
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
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.
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.
The only purpose I'm familiar with is raising ICANN's operating budget. I'd imagine another round of auctions means another budget expansion.
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?
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
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
thanks. added a "hide brands" filter now.
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?
Every possible word can become a TLD :)
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.
> 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?
My bad then. Couldn't read the link because FortiGuard thinks it's risky.
Category: Spam URLs
Risk Level: High Risk
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.
2036: Guys, read my newsletter at ASalazar.<MEXICO_FLAG>.<SMILEY>!
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.
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.
What we really need is one char TLDs so we bring back WWW
eg: www.x
www.x would be owned by Elon. Don't give him ideas.
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.
2 to 4 chars is a good range.
imagine it were shorter... like 0 characters.
this is what the new gTLDs are.
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?
I thought TLDs were sponsored/registered by corporations, and hence had a say in what can be registered on that TLD and by whom.
> 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 can I register my own .google domain then?
https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round...
> assuming we're not talking about .brand
sorry I didn't know that wasn't referring to the .brand gTLD
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.
ICANN announcement about what this is: https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-reveals...