

GTLD Applied-For Strings - NaOH
http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/program-status/application-results/strings-1200utc-13jun12-en?tag=mncol;txt

======
burke
What a disgustingly blatant cash grab. I wonder how long ICANN-monopolized DNS
as we know it will stick around.

------
willlll
Apple is applying for APPLE. Google is applying for 谷歌, みんな, グーグル, ADS, AND,
ANDROID, APP, ARE, BABY, BLOG, BOO, BOOK, BUY, CAL, CAR, CHANNEL, CHROME,
CLOUD, CORP, CPA, DAD, DAY, DCLK, DDS, DEV, DIY, DOCS, DOG, DOT, DRIVE, EARTH,
EAT, ESQ, EST, FAMILY, FILM, FLY, FOO, FREE, FUN, FYI, GAME, GBIZ, GLE, GMAIL,
GMBH, GOO, GOOG, GOOGLE, GUGE, HANGOUT, HERE, HOME, HOW, INC, ING, KID, LIVE,
LLC, LLP, LOL, LOVE, MAIL, MAP, MBA, MED, MEME, MOM, MOTO, MOV, MOVIE, MUSIC,
NEW, NEXUS, PAGE, PET, PHD, PLAY, PLUS, PROD, PROF, RSVP, SEARCH, SHOP, SHOW,
SITE, SOY, SPOT, SRL, STORE, TALK, TEAM, TECH, TOUR, TUBE, VIP, WEB, WOW, YOU,
YOUTUBE, ZIP

~~~
adgar
Are you suggesting that Apple should diversify its investment in web
properties? Or that Google shouldn't? (Or are you not making a point?)

------
nostromo
Notice how 70 were applied for by "Top Level Domain Holdings Limited"

Then go to their website, and click management.
<http://www.tldh.org/management/>

The exe's bio says, "Prior to joining TLDH, Peter Dengate Thrush was Chairman
of the Board of Directors of ICANN, and in that role led the process that
resulted in the historic decision to launch the new gTLD program in June
2011."

Seems like a conflict of interest.

------
blazingice
I count 1930 applications, which is $357M in revenue, given the stated
application fee of $185,000. This is three times the projected revenue of $92M
[1]. It'll be interesting to see how ICANN ends up spending this money.

[1] [http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-
mem...](http://archive.icann.org/en/topics/new-gtlds/explanatory-memo-new-
gtld-program-budget-22oct10-en.pdf)

------
frankbook
This: <http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/155941/domainbias.pdf>

~~~
graue
Quoting linked paper's abstract (please include a summary next time):

> This paper uncovers a new phenomenon in web search that we call domain bias
> — a user’s propensity to believe that a page is more relevant just because
> it comes from a particular domain. We provide evidence of the existence of
> domain bias in click activity as well as in human judgments via a
> comprehensive collection of experiments. We begin by studying the difference
> between domains that a search engine surfaces and that users click.
> Surprisingly, we find that despite changes in the overall distribution of
> surfaced domains, there has not been a comparable shift in the distribution
> of clicked domains. Users seem to have learned the landscape of the internet
> and their click behavior has thus become more predictable over time. Next,
> we run a blind domain test, akin to a Pepsi/Coke taste test, to determine
> whether domains can shift a user’s opinion of which page is more relevant.
> We find that domains can actually flip a user’s preference about 25% of the
> time.

I skimmed the paper, and it looks interesting but not really relevant to this
story. They find that swapping the domains webmd.com and genetichealth.com
causes people to prefer the result labeled "webmd.com" (with
genetichealth.com's content). All this seems to suggest is that WebMD has a
reputation for relevant health content, i.e. it's the reputation attached to
the domain that matters, not the domain itself. (If it IS the domain itself,
that's not established here.) So if WebMD moved to "webmd.health" or just
"webmd.", once people got used to the change, it doesn't seem that this would
affect the results.

------
SCdF
Can someone explain why this kind of thing is a good idea? Apart from ICANN
making more sweet sweet money, what exactly is the point?

~~~
wmf
We won't need lame getfoo.com or fooapp.com style domains; it can be something
cooler like foo.app.

~~~
gamache
And then the second app called Foo comes around, and...

------
jensnockert
Interesting that some domains are registered a lot of times, like .app

I wonder how (and if) they are going to select a 'winner'

~~~
wmf
Some of the applicants will try to disqualify each other. If more than one
applicant is still left after that, ICANN will auction the TLD.

------
tmcw
I really, really hope I can register for .CASHBACKBONUS URLs in the future.
Sure, my homepage is... tmcw.CASHBACKBONUS

~~~
duskwuff
One of many instances of companies registering their names, trademarks, and
slogans. There's also .AFAMILYCOMPANY, for instance, proposed by Johnson &
Johnson.

I seriously hope that ICANN blanket-rejects all proposals which include
trademarks, on the grounds that they would be of no use to anyone other than
the trademark holder.

~~~
tg3
based on other articles on this topic, it seems that allowing for trademark
names is half the point (e.g. Canon.com switching to .Canon). These companies
aren't applying for the string so that others may use it, they're applying so
that their company brand is all over their domain.

~~~
duskwuff
Right. And that's something I disagree with -- it's my position that TLDs
should only be created where they will be some sort of utility to a
significant segment of Internet users.

Besides, working with my example of .AFAMILYCOMPANY, I'm not sure that J&J
even has any good uses in mind for it. They do have afamilycompany.com
registered, but it doesn't appear to have any DNS records set up.

~~~
wmf
_TLDs should only be created where they will be some sort of utility to a
significant segment of Internet users._

Why? Another entry in the root zone costs almost nothing.

~~~
goforit
Is $185K almost nothing?

~~~
wmf
I mean it costs the Internet almost nothing. If a company voluntarily pays
$185K for a domain, that's no business of mine.

------
senthilnayagam
one guy Daniel Schindler applied 307 times with different LLC company names &
*@donuts.co email, which looks computer generated name generator app

