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.
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.
Very useful! I found this article a really good summary of the gtld situation:
https://www.wired.com/story/icann-top-level-domains-meow/
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)
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?
> .lan
Don't you dare, Coffee Danger LLC
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.
so many TLDs that seem to be exploiting similarity to existing ones?
.cmo/.con are particularly egregious
Every possible word can become a TLD :)
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.
Why are these TLDs so tightly bound to a specific organization? Why can't thei registration be more open?
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
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.
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