> Canon buying it's own .canon gTLD and closing it down is a way to allow http://canon in the address bar of a browser.
It just occurred to me that—for advertising purposes—that would be longer than canon.com. They can't just plop the word "canon" at the bottom of their advertisements. Nobody would understand that to be a URL. So they would have to add the protocol to it:
http://canon
which is 3 characters longer than what they could do now:
canon.com
Not saying you're wrong about their intended use, it just struck me as ironic that having your own TLD would increase the size of your printed URL.
company will be the next natural step. Maybe the step afert that will be naming the company after the domain name (some domains have hyphens in place of spaces in the name of the company now).
If it were not for the huge cost everybody could have its own gTLD. We could end up being surprised that a given company still has the .com suffix. "It's a small one, they don't have money", we'll think.
> If it were not for the huge cost everybody could have its own gTLD. We could end up being surprised that a given company still has the .com suffix. "It's a small one, they don't have money", we'll think.
Precisely, and one of the many reasons gTLDs are so distasteful. It marginalizes smaller businesses that cannot (yet) afford to play with the big-boys who throw around $185,000 as if it's nothing. Prior to this, domain registration was mostly a level playing field of first-come-first-served.
In a world where we often decry regulation that may benefit big business over small business, ICANN pulled this stunt which is egregiously and by design biased toward big business and it was more or less ignored by everyone.
Above, you pointed out that .canon is distinct from .dev because Canon is a trademarked name. Although I understand trademarks have been used to dislodge domain squatters, I believe that's extremely rare. Making a distinction between trademarks and generic terms creates ambiguity. The gray area of deciding between a company named "DEV" wanting to (or more likely feeling they need to) spend $185,000 to protect their identity and a domain registrar wanting to spend $185,000 to sell subdomains in "dev" is yet another reason gTLDs were a bad idea.
I can see another problem. I explain it with an example.
We know there are two Apple, the music company and the electronics one. The relationship has not been easy en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer but they have a trademark in their own business space and that's a case contemplated by trademark law. However there can be only .apple gTLD. I'd like to see what's happen has soon as one of the two Apples tries to get it.
It just occurred to me that—for advertising purposes—that would be longer than canon.com. They can't just plop the word "canon" at the bottom of their advertisements. Nobody would understand that to be a URL. So they would have to add the protocol to it:
which is 3 characters longer than what they could do now: Not saying you're wrong about their intended use, it just struck me as ironic that having your own TLD would increase the size of your printed URL.