
List of All Current TLDs - manjana
http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt
======
mike_d
The IANA TLD list should never be used directly. What you really want instead
is the Public Suffix List [1]. It will help you determine the "effective TLD"
of domains like amazon.co.uk or sflawlib.ci.sf.ca.us, and gives you more
insight in to how a technical allocation at the root transforms politically in
to implementation.

1\.
[https://publicsuffix.org/list/public_suffix_list.dat](https://publicsuffix.org/list/public_suffix_list.dat)

~~~
sleevi
PSL maintainer here: please don’t use the PSL!

Yes, it’s weird to have a maintainer asking people not to use their project,
but the PSL was a very specific (and unfortunate) hack for a very specific
(and unfortunate, and browser-created) problem. It is something we live with,
not something we like. While the ideal world is “don’t use any list at all,
use the protocols as God, the IETF, and IANA intended”, if you are going to
use a list, using the IANA list, updated daily, is much better than the PSL.

Do not use the PSL for anything that is not “cookies abusing the Host header”

[https://github.com/sleevi/psl-problems](https://github.com/sleevi/psl-
problems)

~~~
Lvl999Noob
Are you still adding suffixes to the list? If so, wouldn't refusing to add new
suffixes help with the issue? If no new organisation can make use of PSL to
link their subdomains, then they are only left with SOP. Since the list stays
like it is now, no existing websites, depending on the list suddenly break
down.

~~~
sleevi
We are. Deliberate sabotage like that would take quite a while before it was
noticed, however, and it wouldn’t magically fix cookies and how people use
them.

To the extent it is used by cookies, we still want to maintain a fair and
equitable solution. However, we also want to actively discourage any new users
or use cases, to the extent possible, while we also try to fix cookies.

Ideas _like_ [https://github.com/privacycg/first-party-
sets](https://github.com/privacycg/first-party-sets) provide a possible model.
While FPS doesn’t directly address this, as part of keeping a narrow scope,
the approach to explicitly expressing boundaries is one that has the best
viable path. However, that’s effectively “Deprecate the Host option for
cookies”, so... that’s a big task.

Simply sabotaging the PSL doesn’t force the problem to be solved, so mostly,
it’s an education campaign of “We made a mistake; learn from ours, rather than
repeating it.”

------
saaaaaam
I worked with some slightly crazy businessmen who were tricked by an out-of-
work “domain name consultant” into putting in an application for some new
gTLDs.

They got one, and cashed out another application to let someone else take it
which got them all their application fees back plus a decent chunk of cash.

They were genuinely convinced their terrible new gTLD was going to make them
$100 million a year.

My main job was to stop them from blowing what money they had in reserve on
insane publicity stunts for long enough that they woke up and realised they
had been conned.

Eventually they woke up but had spent something approaching $2m finding that
out. I stopped them spending at least as much again.

“Tell me again why you want to hire ten hot air balloons to fly over this
stadium...?”

~~~
treeman79
Worked Directly for a fortune 100 CEO.

His attitude on advertising was it was better take all the money, put it in a
pile and burn it.

Had positive things about superbowel ads, but dissed everything else

~~~
andruby
Nice typo. Superbowel.

~~~
anon73044
Could have been entirely intentional if he's not a sportsball fan.

~~~
treeman79
Let’s go with that. :)

------
gruez
For comparison, the same file 10 years ago:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20100502082201/http://data.iana....](https://web.archive.org/web/20100502082201/http://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-
alpha-by-domain.txt)

There were only 279 TLDs back then, or 32 TLDs if you excluded all the country
code TLDs. Now there are 1508 TLDs, or 1260 excluding country code TLDs.

~~~
zokier
> There were only 279 TLDs back then, or 32 TLDs if you excluded all the
> country code TLDs.

Arguably that's about 30 too many and really the root of this whole mess. Imho
Postel, for all the good he did, in retrospect mismanaged DNS by not
establising really any structure or policy, in a way that feels now bit
naive/idealistic (and US-centric).

By the time ICANN took over dot-com bubble was already knocking at the door
and laissez faire anything goes attitude of DNS pretty well cemented, so any
drastic changes would have been difficult to accomplish.

Essentially by leaving the legacy TLDs completely open and mostly without
restrictions or hierarchy/structure their meaning was eroded away, and if the
TLDs have no meaning then it's only logical to throw them away.

------
fanf2
One of my side projects is
[https://twitter.com/diffroot](https://twitter.com/diffroot) a twitter account
that publishes changes to the root zone (except for nameserver IP address
changes). Alongside that I have a couple of Twitter threads commenting on the
changes.

The relevant one is
[https://twitter.com/fanf/status/903709051606978560](https://twitter.com/fanf/status/903709051606978560)
my collection of dead .brand TLDs which is now 3 years old (tho I didn't keep
it very reliably the first year).

It's also amusing to see if you can spot a .brand TLD being used for real
services, where the brand is not an Internet company. The biggest one I know
of is SNCF.

~~~
mike_d
Thank you for this service. It is actually the only Twitter account I have
push notifications enabled for (though I need to figure out a better solution
when there is a lot of churn).

FWIW, I know at least one non-tech company that was already using .brand as an
internal TLD and spent the money to avoid a name collision.

------
nfoz
ICANN sold out the internet. The namespace is all but ruined.

.PHOTO, .PHOTOGRAPHY, .PHOTOS, .PICS, .PICTURES

This should offend everyone.

~~~
codethief
I'm more concerned about TLDs like:

    
    
        .ACCENTURE
        .AIRBUS
        .AMERICANEXPRESS
        .AMERICANFAMILY
        .AVIANCA
        .BAIDU
        .BARCLAYCARD
        .BARCLAYS
        .BENTLEY
        .BESTBUY
        .BLOOMBERG
        .BNPPARIBAS
        .BOEHRINGER
        .BUGATTI
        .CALVINKLEIN
        .CAPITALONE
        .CITI
        .EPSON
        .ERICSSON
        .FERRARI
        .FUJITSU
        .GMAIL
        .GODADDY
        .HDFC
        .HDFCBANK
        .HITACHI
        .HYATT
        .HYUNDAI
        .JAGUAR
        .JEEP
        .JPMORGAN
        .JUNIPER
        .KERRYHOTELS
        .KERRYLOGISTICS
        .KERRYPROPERTIES
        .LACAIXA
        .LAMBORGHINI
        .LANDROVER
        .LANXESS
        .LPLFINANCIAL
        .MASERATI
        .MATTEL
        .MCKINSEY
        .MICROSOFT
        .MITSUBISHI
        .NETFLIX
        .NORTHWESTERNMUTUAL
        .OLAYANGROUP
        .PANASONIC
        .PRAMERICA
        .SAMSUNG
        .SCHAEFFLER
        .SCJOHNSON
        .SONY
        .STCGROUP
        .SUZUKI
        .SWATCH
        .TIFFANY
        .TOSHIBA
        .VIRGIN
        .VOLKSWAGEN
    

It's disgusting.

~~~
AmericanChopper
If those TLDs were actually useful, then the domain name system would be in
much better shape than it actually is.

In reality, you have .gov for government, .com for business, .org for
organisations who don’t care how much traffic they get, local country TLDs for
if you operate a service for one country only, and tons and tons of garbage.

com is the only TLD that has any value for international commerce. It doesn’t
matter that .netflix exists, because it will never be used for anything
productive. The problem is that you can only ever count on a person knowing
.com and their local TLD. Everything else either won’t register with people as
being an actual domain name, or will look like a scam to most people.

The internet is locked into this system, and it’s one that cannot possibly
scale. The explosion in new TLDs is an attempt to address that. But we don’t
need to worry about how disgusting it is, because it’s an attempt that has
failed.

I would suggest two issues that are more concerning is that there is nothing
that seems to be a realistic alternative or solution, and that the way this
problem has played out has diminished the actual usefulness of domain names,
with that gap being filled by the google search engine.

~~~
kohtatsu
There were plans on potentially allowing [https://netflix/](https://netflix/)

I can't recall the technical term for it though, and my search engine couldn't
help me find it within a few minutes.

~~~
pantalaimon
That would ruin local host names

~~~
pwdisswordfish4
Not if the final dot to denote the root zone were to be brought back, i.e.
[https://netflix./](https://netflix./)

~~~
parliament32
Brought back? It's still a thing and required.. your OS's DNS implementation
might not handle it in the way you expect though ;)

------
jacobjonz
I agree with @jrockway below. There is no point in retaining TLDs the way are
now. The original idea of TLDs were to have separate namespaces. For example,
apple.com is the company apple and apple.fruit, may be a fruit seller. This
never worked though. At the end, the companies ended up having to register all
the TLDs or someone else would get apple.dong and pretend to be related to
apple. ICANN decided to use the opportunity for money grab and started
releasing new TLDs every now and then. It makes all sense to get rid of usage
of TLDs as they are today. If apple is <any subdomain>.apple, that's it.
People would know that apple.dong is something related to dong. It might sound
to be far fetched, but it is not. Once people see the flooding of TLDs (like
handshake TLDs which are easily and cheaply available to general public on
Namebase (namebase.io) or Bob wallet(Bob wallet.io)) and when they realize
TLDs are the new equivalent of .coms, they would realize that it's just the
TLDs that matter for auth aspect and the subdomains are more functional within
the company (like mail.google and chat.google) The only people to lose are the
scammers and ICANN.

------
Bnshsysjab
I’d love $myhandle.sucks but alas the domain registrar decided to charge
extortion rates in the hopes that large companies register their own domain to
prevent hate sites >_>

~~~
jasomill
Incidentally, if the $185,000 you're about to spend on a new gTLD registration
is bringing you down, you could use the money to register _icann.sucks_
instead:

[https://www.rebel.com/search/?exact=false&q=icann.sucks&tldo...](https://www.rebel.com/search/?exact=false&q=icann.sucks&tldonly=sucks)

Turnabout is, I suppose, fair play.

~~~
saagarjha
Funnily enough, I tried to check dotsucks.sucks…they’ve thought through that
already.

------
gfaure
.calvinklein? .bananarepublic? A clear money-grab that has no benefit to
users, complicates validation and security for developers, and seals off vast
swathes of the namespace for the sole use of corporations.

~~~
ShakataGaNai
A money grab for whom? ICANN, sure. But if a company wants to spend the $200k,
what is the big deal?

Some companies (ex
[http://www.nic.ovh/en/index.xml](http://www.nic.ovh/en/index.xml) ) are using
it for their customers.

Some companies (ex [https://calculator.aws/](https://calculator.aws/) ) are
using it for shorter URLs, while still being descriptive.

Sure some are just doing it because they can, other's have no good use case
yet. But I fail to see how .bananarepublic being in the hands of one company
is a detriment to me... the average internet user.

~~~
gfaure
It's a money grab for ICANN, precisely. Neither users nor developers have any
say in this process, and the body that stands to benefit financially from
accepting trademarks as TLDs is _not_ going to be acting in the interest of
users or developers, are they?

My argument wasn't specifically about .bananarepublic or .calvinklein. It was
more that I don't believe trademarks should have been admitted, full stop.
There's no way ICANN can make impartial decisions here that benefit the bulk
of Internet users.

I reserve judgement on generic TLDs, although I really don't like the
implications to user confusion caused by .photo, .photos, .pics and the like.

------
jrockway
I don't understand why we even have TLDs, and don't just register names at the
root level. Sure, it's nice to be able to shard data structures among many
providers (.com can be different servers/infrastructure/rules than .net) and
might have been a technical necessity "back in the day" (though there weren't
many shards, so I doubt it), but now it's actively harmful. You found a
company called foobarcorp and register foobarcorp.com... and some jerk
registers foobarcorp.net, foobarcorp.info, foobarcorp.sucks, etc. Why even
allow this? Let there be one and only one foobarcorp.

Yes, I'm bitter that Google gets google. but I'm stuck with jrock.us. Why does
it cost millions of dollars to remove one dot from my domain name? There is no
technical reason. Maybe it's time to overthrow the default root servers and
start our own Internet.

Also "." should have an A record.

~~~
puranjay
> foobarcorp.net, foobarcorp.info, foobarcorp.sucks, etc. Why even allow this

Because there can be multiple companies with the same name. Why cut them off
from using their own name in a domain address?

~~~
account42
You already have that problem - there is only one .com and most companies will
want to hog all others too.

------
randyreddig
Maintainer of ZoneDB (zonedb.org or
[https://github.com/zonedb/zonedb](https://github.com/zonedb/zonedb)) here:

We extracted this project from Domainr
([https://domainr.com](https://domainr.com)), using tooling that updates the
database each day. It’s formatted as a single text file (zones.txt) and
associated metadata in JSON files. We also generate a Go package for our own
uses (the tooling is written in Go).

It’s similar to the PSL, but where the PSL has wildcards and inverted matches,
ZoneDB explicitly lists each “known” zone, including retired or withdrawn
names.

[https://github.com/zonedb/zonedb/blob/master/zones.txt](https://github.com/zonedb/zonedb/blob/master/zones.txt)

------
palijer
.GIFT .GIFTS

Why have both? There is no way that isn't going to cause confusion.

~~~
james_pm
Also .hotel and .hotels. And .photo and .photos (and .photography). Plus .ink
and .inc. And many more "confusingly similar" despite ICANN rules that were
supposed to prevent that. Money talks.

~~~
spcebar
I agree there's serious potential for misleading customers, but also see the
occasional merit of having both, ie, if you own Hank's Hotel you'd want the
.hotel tld to correctly identify your business, and likewise helpmefind.hotels
makes more sense than helpmefind.hotel. These are my arbitrary examples that
do not outweigh the potential for the fraud of someone registering
hanks.hotels maliciously. I think icann is a horrible entity and never should
have existed.

On a different note, I like how many tlds there are now. .pizza is my personal
favorite.

------
NKosmatos
Hi all, a question slightly related to this topic... Is there an easy (and
free) way to get hold of all the registered domains under a TLD or ccTLD? I
know that services like [0] exist, but they are paid for and the validity and
collection of data is dubious. Why aren't zone files generally and freely
available? Is there a way to download or mirror the DNS data?

[0][https://zonefiles.io/cctld-domains/](https://zonefiles.io/cctld-domains/)

------
rerx
I like how there are _two_ top level domains for my city of about a million
people: .cologne and .koeln

Is there any other town represented twice? OK, places like Berlin, Hamburg,
London or Paris don't have the advantage of different spellings in English and
a local language. But there's only .wien, no .vienna. How about .tokyo -- is
there a puny-coded Japanese version?

~~~
SergeAx
"cologne" may be referring to perfume)

~~~
rerx
It isn't though :) -- just try
[https://www.city.cologne](https://www.city.cologne)

The company behind .cologne and .koeln is from Vienna BTW:
[https://nic.koeln/en](https://nic.koeln/en) How could they let .vienna slip
through the cracks?

------
ksec
Here is another chance for people who may know more on TLDs.

What happened to .Web?

Verisign got it in 2016 and it has since been in endless legal battle and
endless _Final_ decisions from ICANN.

Anyone have any news on that?

------
Tepix
I looked at the list and ZERO grabbed my attention. Turns out its a private
GTLD for Amazon.

Reading Amazons's application for the ZERO GTLD (linked at
[https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationde...](https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/934)
) makes me angry. It's completly bland. You could use their application to
register any string under the sun. It's not clear what benefits it offers for
the public. These types of domains should not be allowed.

------
ss64
and still nobody has registered .EXE

------
neiman
What stops us, at 2020, to just allow possible string to be a TLD? What's the
point of limiting it to this list?

~~~
umvi
Nothing, technically speaking. But legally and economically speaking I think
it's a bad idea.

I personally think there should only be a very small handful of TLDs: com,
edu, org, gov and maybe a few others. Having a limited number of TLDs
communicates to the end user what kind of site it is (government, educational,
commercial, non-profit, etc.) and reduces your domain footprint online.

When you allow ".sucks" to be a TLD, now you've basically opened up a new
market of squatters and blackmailers forcing companies and individuals to buy
up every possible potentially damaging TLD of their trademark or brand[0].

If you allow any arbitrary TLD, be prepared to employ a full DNS police force
because tons of people acting in bad faith are going to register every
possible typo under the sun in order to capitalize on people's mistakes
("apple.con", "apple.cpm", "apple.vom", "f---.apple")

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sucks_(registry)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sucks_\(registry\))

~~~
gabereiser
I agree with this only so much as to protect the user with information on what
type of site they are visiting. Org for non-profit or clubs, Net for networks,
Com for commerce, nation tld’s and gov. The arbitrary TLD’s are really to keep
certain organizations from owning the internet because of how name
registration works. Humans are corrupt.

~~~
neiman
.org could still be for non-profits and national TLD's could still be managed
by governments. .com, .net, meanings btw, are completely irrelevant nowadays.

My idea is not to cancel the meaning of .org, but rather create other
possibilities for names.

What's the difference really between a 1000+ TLDs and a 100,000+ TLDs?

------
wespeng
I have wrote a perl module for this official IANA TLD database, please review
it:
[https://metacpan.org/pod/Net::IANA::TLD](https://metacpan.org/pod/Net::IANA::TLD)

Thanks.

------
mmphosis
.WTF

------
wheelerwj
look at all that digital real estate thats not being used. So much
opportunity!

~~~
gruez
Ah yes, we were missing out on so much without TLDs like KERRYLOGISTICS,
LPLFINANCIAL, or SANDVIKCOROMANT!

~~~
c22
I think .BLOCKBUSTER is the one that's really going to come in handy.

------
xwdv
Why is there no .FACEBOOK?

~~~
tialaramex
Presumably they didn't want to spend a tremendous amount of money for no clear
purpose?

Most outfits which registered a brand or company name as a TLD are purely
throwing away money here, either because they didn't understand what they were
doing or out of sheer vanity.

You can _maybe_ make an argument for a handful of very big technology
companies that have some sort of plan for what they'll do with a TLD, such as
Google, but I don't think Facebook would be on that list.

~~~
xwdv
If there’s any company that could have _tons_ of uses for a TLD it’s Facebook.

Imagine a decentralized Facebook made up of custom websites all using the
.facebook domain. Imagine the revenues.

Zuckerberg are you reading this? What are your thoughts?

------
searchableguy
There should be .anime or .uwu

~~~
james_pm
Related, there is .moe

------
bhartzer
My favorite site to watch: ntldstats dot com

------
gitgud
What are all the TLDs prefixed with XN--?

~~~
kej
Punycode for these Unicode names:

कॉम セール 佛山 ಭಾರತ 慈善 集团 在线 한국 ଭାରତ 大众汽车 点看 คอม ভাৰত ভারত 八卦 موقع বাংলা 公益 公司
香格里拉 网站 移动 我爱你 москва қаз католик онлайн сайт 联通 срб бг бел קום 时尚 微博 淡马锡
ファッション орг नेट ストア アマゾン 삼성 சிங்கப்பூர் 商标 商店 商城 дети мкд ею ポイント 新闻 家電 كوم 中文网
中信 中国 中國 娱乐 谷歌 భారత్ ලංකා 電訊盈科 购物 クラウド ભારત 通販 भारतम् भारत भारोत 网店 संगठन 餐厅
网络 ком укр 香港 亚马逊 诺基亚 食品 飞利浦 台湾 台灣 手机 мон الجزائر عمان ارامكو ایران العليان
اتصالات امارات بازار موريتانيا پاکستان الاردن بارت بھارت المغرب ابوظبي البحرين
السعودية ڀارت كاثوليك سودان همراه عراق مليسيا 澳門 닷컴 政府 شبكة بيتك عرب გე 机构
组织机构 健康 ไทย سورية 招聘 рус рф تونس 大拿 ລາວ みんな グーグル ευ ελ 世界 書籍 ഭാരതം ਭਾਰਤ 网址 닷넷
コム 天主教 游戏 vermögensberater vermögensberatung 企业 信息 嘉里大酒店 嘉里 مصر قطر 广东 இலங்கை
இந்தியா հայ 新加坡 فلسطين 政务

~~~
maple3142
I don't know Amazon and Google have their domain in Japanese too.

アマゾン (Amazon) グーグル (Google)

~~~
NetOpWibby
Oh that's clever

------
axaxs
All because of an ICANN money grab. If it were really about 'having choice',
applications wouldn't have cost so much.

~~~
hombre_fatal
The end-game is that everyone is going to have their own suffix for their
website. And the first part of the hostname will standardize into, I don't
know, maybe "com" for the commercial part of your entity, "org" for the more
community-oriented part, "net" for projects that have to do with
interconnectivity, etc. Maybe even regional ones like "us" and "co.uk".

For example,

    
    
        com.shopify
        net.battle
        org.wikipedia
        co.uk.bbc
        gov.whitehouse
    

Maybe even some sort of routing system, just spitballing here.

    
    
        /my-shop/com.shopify
        /elections/gov.whitehouse
    

Surprised nobody has thought of something like this.

The only problem I see with this system is that the ICANN could get greedy and
possibly sell this conventional "com", "net", "org", etc prefix system to the
highest bidders and centralize them to just a few suffixes for us to choose
between, then we'd be forced to register our websites as prefixes of a small
oligarchy that owns the handful of suffixes. :/

~~~
aserafini
I think the end game will be that the domain part of a URL will become
optional so that it is valid to enter just a TLD in the browser and the
company that owns that TLD can redirect.

So [http://google](http://google) would be a valid URL that redirects to
[http://www.google.com](http://www.google.com) (for example).

Essentially TLDs will become the new domains and only companies will be able
to afford to buy one, but they will do it for the prestige (like the
equivalent of owning your .com today).

~~~
squiggleblaz
More likely, the whole system will just collapse and so we will use a private
organisation who provides a service linking approximate names to websites,
something like a telephone directory but it doesn't require you to correctly
spell things and get the right prefix. It will occasionally be a problem where
you search for "Honest Company" and it takes you to honest.co.fraud, but if it
does that too often I guess we will switch to a competitor. I guess the main
solution to that problem is to have a list of different possible matches, and
require the user to pick the right one.

~~~
selfhoster11
> we will use a private organisation who provides a service linking
> approximate names to websites

You are describing Google. Lots of people already type in 'yahoo' or 'paypal'
and then click the first link than type the URL.

~~~
navaati
Woooosh !

