This is not surprising but I fail to see the downside. The internet is complex already. The new top level domains won't add much to that.
I think that there was no end-user demand whatsoever for more so-called DNS extensions, [or] global generic top-level domains (gTLDs)," he said.
I run a lot of websites and it was a pain to find good domain names in the last 15 years. With all the new TLDs that problem is completely gone.
There will be a time when the multitude of TLDs won't bother anyone. Limiting TLDs doesn't add security. Educating people about the dangers of the internet does.
You could also just get people to give up the TLDs they're not using.
I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000.
I'm of the view if you're sitting on names that you're keeping around exclusively because you think they could net you a windfall in the future then you're a bit of an internet twat.
Yeah a bit of pain, but at least you prevent some confusions, like "is it fr.microsoft or microsoft.software?" What if it happens that your company name is registered for another TLD and people start seeing it as a legit instance of your service?
What if you're a bank and somebody gets a TLD like "yourbank.bank" with valid SSL and starts fishing people from yourbank.com?
It is a shakedown. Companies already have to buy their trademark domains on multiple TLD just to avoid litigating them constantly. Now they will have to buy them on hundreds of TLD. Doesn't it mean anything that registrars were the only people asking for this?
I like some of the ones like .ninja, .xyz, and .space just because they're cheap more interesting then .me which is what used to pop up a lot for personal projects I was linked to.
I don't consider this a surprise at all. I see these new ads for things like ".digital" and ".media" and the only thing I can think of is using them for vanity, such as xyzcompany.media and then using that internally.
It's a shame that ICANN is polluting the internet like this.
To know that abc.media is a media company while abc.auto is a car company would be good for the user. It makes them less likely to click the wrong link. Really, more TLDs should just provide a finer grain of information to the previous '.com is a company and .org is an organisation'. There's no 'pollution' if you're only refining an idea. It's not like .com is going away.
Plus, what's actually wrong with vanity as far as what domain points a website? What is the benefit in having fewer TLDs?
".com" forever? There is no reason we can have better naming systems. Consider ".io". It's often used by startups and signals quite a lot about a domain.
I understand that the current situation is a bit of a money grab, but what is the rational for TLDs not being arbitrary in the first place? Isn't it all just letters anyways?
Not at all arbitrary. Some organizations do a much better job than others maintaining, developing and generally being good Internet citizens. We've had much good come from the Dutch, German and Swedish TLDs for example (but also many others).
They also have a self interest in handling conflicts responsibly and being proactive about new laws, and the juridical status of domain ownership, because they're in it for the long run. I wish I could say the same about for example Verisign...
I think it would be useful if the companies buying the TLDs were not allowed to buy more than 100 or so of 2nd level domains within that TLD and forced the price to be something non-trivial like $30.
Then owning all the 2nd level domains would be prohibitively expensive and would actually be useful for people coming up with a good domain name.
Maybe Microsoft, Google, Apple and Mozilla could get together, and configure their OSes and browsers to do DNS lookups by default using a system different than ICANN's via security updates.
That would make ICANN mostly irrelevant in less than a year.
Also, it improves security, since you are already trusting your browser vendor and would no longer need to trust ICANN, registrars and the CA system as well.
Microsoft, Google and Apple were among the first to apply for the new TLDs (though the latter just asked for .apple), so why would they now oppose this scheme?
This would be an appallingly bad precedent to set.
As soon as there was precedent and infrastructure for this, a huge number of state actors would either set this up maliciously, or start auctioning off country-specific DNS rights (aka start extorting money from companies -- "oh do you want to own google.com in <country>? that will be $2mm/yr").
The new TLDs allow more expressiveness and creativity. IMO, there should be even more of them. The limitations should be similar to the limitations placed on searchable results: cost, law, preventing harm, etc.
It is interesting to think about why we are limiting the creativity here. Are we looking out for a human being's typical memory? A router's memory? Network capacity? All seem ample to support loads of new TLDs.
[+] [-] NameNickHN|10 years ago|reply
There will be a time when the multitude of TLDs won't bother anyone. Limiting TLDs doesn't add security. Educating people about the dangers of the internet does.
[+] [-] ownagefool|10 years ago|reply
I find it somewhat depressing that emailing folks about domain names they're not using results in either a) being ignored or b) being asked to pay $40,000.
I'm of the view if you're sitting on names that you're keeping around exclusively because you think they could net you a windfall in the future then you're a bit of an internet twat.
[+] [-] xgbi|10 years ago|reply
What if you're a bank and somebody gets a TLD like "yourbank.bank" with valid SSL and starts fishing people from yourbank.com?
[+] [-] jeremyjh|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] springboard|10 years ago|reply
A few other sports specific domains are also nice, like .soccer, .tennis, .football ...
Almost all of the meaningful .com's .org's and .net's are gone. It's time we had new TLD's that make more sense.
[+] [-] marcus_holmes|10 years ago|reply
I think that a "globally unique brand" will go the same way as a "globally unique username", for exactly the same reasons.
Goodbye "apple" hello "apple computers"... oh wait, that already happened...
[+] [-] ThreeAs|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] joshmn|10 years ago|reply
It's a shame that ICANN is polluting the internet like this.
[+] [-] onion2k|10 years ago|reply
Plus, what's actually wrong with vanity as far as what domain points a website? What is the benefit in having fewer TLDs?
[+] [-] bachback|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rtpg|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] xorcist|10 years ago|reply
They also have a self interest in handling conflicts responsibly and being proactive about new laws, and the juridical status of domain ownership, because they're in it for the long run. I wish I could say the same about for example Verisign...
[+] [-] lqdc13|10 years ago|reply
Then owning all the 2nd level domains would be prohibitively expensive and would actually be useful for people coming up with a good domain name.
[+] [-] gaius|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] devit|10 years ago|reply
That would make ICANN mostly irrelevant in less than a year.
Also, it improves security, since you are already trusting your browser vendor and would no longer need to trust ICANN, registrars and the CA system as well.
[+] [-] icebraining|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bpodgursky|10 years ago|reply
As soon as there was precedent and infrastructure for this, a huge number of state actors would either set this up maliciously, or start auctioning off country-specific DNS rights (aka start extorting money from companies -- "oh do you want to own google.com in <country>? that will be $2mm/yr").
[+] [-] jamespitts|10 years ago|reply
It is interesting to think about why we are limiting the creativity here. Are we looking out for a human being's typical memory? A router's memory? Network capacity? All seem ample to support loads of new TLDs.
[+] [-] InclinedPlane|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sneak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] dibbsonline|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|10 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] sneak|10 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bachback|10 years ago|reply