- nmridul 5 days ago
Surprised to see .theguardian tld there. They ask for donation and spend money on this ?
- tedivm 3 days ago
Lots of companies applied for "Brand TLDs", which are not the same as running a full registrar and not nearly as expensive but did require that you show you have the trademark for the name.
- aequitas 5 days ago
> For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN's Preliminary Determination shall not prohibit ICANN from delegating the gTLD pursuant to a future application process for the delegation of top-level-domains, subject to any processes and objection procedures instituted by ICANN in connection with such application process intended to protect the rights of third parties.
So not really a graveyard. They can be registered again under the normal conditions that apply.
With Google's mission to remove the URL from the browser and these TLD's often being considered fishy (in terms of spam detection etc). I can understand there is little value for companies to obtain/keep these other than prevent squatting.
- liamcardenas 4 days ago
> With Google's mission to remove the URL from the browser...
What evidence is there for this? I searched and I couldn't find anything.
Is this what you are referring to? Because that, in my opinion, is just a minor UI change -- not a fundamental shift in the browser experience, as you seem to imply.
- tonysdg 4 days ago
- 51lver 3 days ago
When was the last time a google link took you to the url that was displayed below it?
- duskwuff 4 days ago
> other than prevent squatting.
And something that became clear during the application process was that squatting is not going to be an issue for gTLDs. There's ample time for a rightsholder to object to a problematic registration.
- pureliquidhw 4 days ago
Was interesting to look into Walmart's xn--4gq48lf9j.
Turns out that translates to chinese(?) characters for Number One Store:
- tehlike 5 days ago
I never really got thr concept of having company names/projects/etc at the top level.
- fjsolwmv 4 days ago
Each one generated revenue for the DNS system administratots.
- vizzah 4 days ago
Corporates mostly, who have with (little) time realised that it makes no commercial sense to keep such an extension secured. We are yet to see graveyard for some (most) of those novelty consumer-facing gTLDs. Give it another couple of years.
- ksec 4 days ago
It was the stupidest idea in Internet History. How about stopping .zip, .exe .rar or .dll as gTLDs.
And the most important one .Web? Still no where to be seen.
- fanf2 4 days ago
Yeah .com .pl .sh were all total disasters!
- dcbadacd 4 days ago
I'd love if oracle used .java to store documentation.
- kencausey 4 days ago
- billpg 5 days ago
Remarkable for so many to have invested that amount of money, only to abandon the project so quickly.
- sdwisely 5 days ago
yeah, most of them you have to wonder why they bothered and others you have to wonder why they would let go of them.
.mcdonalds for example seems like a strange one to let go of even if just for easy memorable addresses people see in store.
perhaps their lack of easy recognition for the user as a url in that context.
- gumby 5 days ago
ironic that '.active' is now inactive!
- yellowapple 3 days ago
https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/xn--4gq48lf9j-2015... ← What happened here? Seems like a real oddball from Wal-Mart, of all places.
- TheBill 5 days ago
I'm surprised at how many techco's let go of their own gtld - from a security standpoint wouldn't it make sense for them to maintain their own SSL & Domains, especially for deployed hardware - URL must match regex of domain & SSL = list of valid certs?
- duskwuff 4 days ago
There's no technical benefit to operating your own TLD for internal use. You get all the same benefits under a normal domain name, without the operating costs of a TLD.
- OnlyRepliesToBS 4 days ago