
Full list of new gTLDs - aaronpk
https://www.name.com/new-gtld
======
kijeda
This list is out of date - it contains strings that have already been
withdrawn by the applicant. The accurate list, including status, and the
prioritization order (the order they'll be added if successful), is at:

[http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-
result/applicationst...](http://gtldresult.icann.org/application-
result/applicationstatus)

------
aes256
This pointless dilution of the TLD space will be its own destruction.

We're heading towards a future in which TLDs are irrelevant.

~~~
4ad
I sure hope so. TLDs _are_ irrelevant.

------
program
Prepare for:

1) Much more complicated URL recognition regexp

2) Much more big Ablock Plus filter lists

3) ftnn2lhnosm.youtube

4) www.apple

I'm joking. I really don't like the new gTLD thing.

~~~
lambda
They are pretty much killing the idea of using regexes to linkify URLs without
the scheme in plain text. Given that Chrome has moved to dropping the
`<http://`> from its address bar, and many people already skip it, they are
probably going to break a lot of linkification code in comment forms and the
like. Sure, people "should" know to type the `<http://`>, but many people just
don't know about that or don't remember, and there's a lot of encouragement
not to.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
>Given that Chrome has moved to dropping the `<http://`> from its address bar

Uh, if you try to copy it, Chrome prepends the <http://>. It's only a visual
effect, it still pastes full links.

~~~
lambda
Yes, but lots of people simply type links rather than copy-pasting. If you
don't see the `<http://`>, you are less likely to remember to type it.

------
prezjordan
I'm just confused. Why on earth would you go to .blockbuster? What domain
would they use? "movies.blockbuster" ? It's so strange - some of these are
extremely long.

~~~
nkassis
I think it's more that they felt obligated to register it to protect their
trademark than them actually wanting to use it.

~~~
marshray
Which sorta implies that ICANN is basically just conducting a trademark
extortion racket.

------
blhack
Offtopic, but has anybody used name.com for domain registration? I recently
found out that namecheap bans the word "hacker" (you have to contact them to
get a domain manually approved if it contains that word).

That rubs me the wrong way, and I'd rather not give my money to a company that
thinks "hackers" are all criminals.

~~~
jsnell
I use name.com, and will never register another domain with them, nor
recommend them to anyone. It's barely acceptable for a mostly unused vanity
domain, but if I were using the domain in any serious way I'd transfer it away
in a heartbeat.

The problem: If you use their name servers, they install a wildcard record for
the domain pointing at a crummy adspam page. You can override the wildcard
record with your own, but not disable it completely, which is completely
unacceptable.

Their explicitly stated reason for fucking over their customers is "we make
more money this way". Which would be fine, but there's actually no way they'd
be making even pennies on my domain, and they are actively reducing its
utility by a much larger amount.

~~~
agwa
Oh please. While I agree that's undesirable, it's a problem with their DNS
hosting service (which is free) and not their registrar service (which you pay
for). By all means warn people away from their free DNS hosting, but it's not
fair to trash the whole company.

~~~
jsnell
That's a very strange view. It's clearly not a free service, but part of what
you pay for. In fact is a large part of what you pay for -- very few
organizations are going to be hosting their own name servers these days.

But more importantly, I don't see how this can possibly be an unfair
criticism. They are providing a uniquely crappy service, and have shown what I
consider to be a flagrant disregard for their customers by degrading their
service for no benefit at all to name.com. It's stupid, it's evil, and it's
bad business. Why in the world would I trust or recommend them?

(Just to be clear: I'm not complaining that there's a wildcard DNS record by
default. Parking domains by default seems to be how everyone in the business
works. I'm complaining about the fact that the wildcard DNS record stays in
effect even after you configure the comain, and can only be disabled by
defining your own bogus wildcard record instead. Basically it turns every user
of their service into an unintentional typosquatter.)

------
omra
I hope that ICANN accepts a small amount of these. Isn't this the point of
subdomains? Why can't ABC just use foo.abc.com (or foo.abc.go.com) instead of
foo.abc? The new TLDs are confusing and I'm sure many people will just type in
.com as well.

Then again, ICANN has nothing to lose by encouraging many applicants, they get
an awful lot of money from the applications (about 357 million [1]). They may
be non-profit, but they still need money to keep running.

    
    
      [1] http://www.name.com/blog/general/news-2/2012/06/icann-reveals-the-new-gtlds/

------
jevin
I think TLDs should represent something broad. I can see anyone getting
.volkswagen except the car manufacturer.

~~~
miahi
On the other hand, getting a big company their own TLD can be easier to
maintain. For VW, having everything under the .volkswagen TLD means they don't
need to have 100 different domains for each country (like volkswagen.com,
volkswagen.co.uk, volkswagen.fr, and so on), each of them with different terms
(in some countries you have to pay a yearly fee, in others you don't).

On the other hand, the new TLD only means just another name to maintain, as I
don't think anyone will actually remove the ".com" domain when they get their
own TLD. One of them will be redirected to the other, and for 99% of the time
the custom one will be redirected to the older.

~~~
dave5104
But wouldn't Volkswagen still want to maintain all of those domains? I highly
doubt they're going to give those all up for either competitors or domain
squatters to snatch up.

So really in the end, a custom TLD is just /more/ money they need to shell out
for protecting their name online.

------
securingsincity
I'm a little worried how these TLD's will be handled by some carriers. Is
there any concern that there will be a fragmentation of the web by carriers or
nations that will try to block access to the .gay or .sex or .xxx or similar
TLD's?

~~~
wmf
We're way beyond that point; countries that want to block stuff are already
blocking stuff. But yes, the porn industry did complain that they didn't want
to be herded into the .xxx ghetto.

------
ck2
_if these applications are successful_

so none are actually approved (and few likely to happen)

~~~
cleverjake
̶s̶u̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶s̶e̶n̶s̶e̶ ̶t̶h̶a̶t̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶y̶ ̶a̶r̶e̶
̶u̶s̶e̶d̶,̶ ̶n̶o̶t̶ ̶s̶u̶c̶c̶e̶s̶s̶f̶u̶l̶ ̶i̶n̶ ̶t̶h̶e̶ ̶t̶e̶r̶m̶s̶ ̶o̶f̶
̶a̶p̶p̶l̶i̶c̶a̶t̶i̶o̶n̶ ̶a̶p̶p̶r̶o̶v̶a̶l̶.̶

EDIT [http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-
media/announc...](http://newgtlds.icann.org/en/announcements-and-
media/announcement-21dec12-en)

>> [The objection period has been] extended .. to 13 March 2013.

I was incorrect

~~~
blhack
Hey, would you mind editing that top line of text on your comment? It is
forcing horizontal scrolling, and breaks the comments page for lots of us :(

(It appears to be one very long string of text, and I don't believe that

    
    
         word-wrap: break-word;
    

is on for the comments, meaning that long words force a scrollbar.)

------
joelrunyon
Can we name 3 benefits of these new gTLDs? The only things I can envision are
money for registrars from selling them & chaos.

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
1\. gTLDs disappear and we simply register at the top-level

2\. See 1

3\. See 2

------
jeffreykam
the only one I'm actually excited for is .zip

~~~
TazeTSchnitzel
<http://virus.exe/>

