If the top-level domain of a website can now be chosen from any number of 2-3 character combinations (i.e. other than "com"), reducing chances of it having each URL be "guessable", then why bother with top-level domains at all?
Google is arguably the most web-focused company in the world (the other contender being Mozilla). So how the hell did they manage to screw up something as basic as URLs on Google+? (I've always liked the elegance of twitter.com/username)
Even worse, when they assigned "good" URLs they gave this horrendous preference to .coms and didn't allow any changes.
For instance, say there's an empty domain at yourbusiness.com, but you're operating on yourbusiness.co.uk, the domain you get is the horrendous "yourbusinesscouk". whilst "yourbusiness" goes completely unused.
I'm surprised by this choice of domains; many of them don't seem to be very appealing for either businesses or individuals. How many people would really want .foo, .boo or .soy?
It will cost Google $185k/yr to run each of these gTLDs. Given that, I think we may know what some of Google's next shuttered projects will be. I wouldn't register a .soy domain (even for free) if I valued long-term presence.
Not to discredit Google's attempts here prematurely, but they are known for shutting down non-profitable/low-trafficked services.
Does "Google is planning on being the registry for these new top level domains" mean that if I want a .dad or .new domain name my only option is to buy it through Google? (or through a Google reseller)
It means they will control the root nameservers. They have the ability to choose who gets it and to what. In theory, they have no obligation to charge anyone.
1. Download the root.zone file. Add your new TLD to it, _but don't change anything else_.
2. Configure and run the necessary DNS software (e.g., nsd, tinydns, etc. plus dnscache, or maybe pdns_recursor) on a computer with a publicly reachable IP address (a "server").
3. Tell your users the IP address of your server. They can then change their DNS settings to point to your server.
You now control the root nameserver for a new TLD.
I run my own root.zone and DNS service for my devices at home and I have some custom TLDs. As such, I "control the root nameserver for a TLD". And I did not pay ICANN anything.
What gives ICANN their ability to make money from this stuff is that for some reason not many people run their own root.zone.[1] Almost everyone points their DNS caches at the ICANN root.zone. Blind faith?
1. Running your own root.zone allows you to add or remove whatever TLDs or individual domainnames you wish. Quite a few people do desire the removal of individual domainnames, i.e., "filtering" and pay OpenDNS for this "service". You can accomplish this by running your own root.zone, for free.
For $185k you get to ask ICANN for a tld. If they accept, I believe it's an additional $185k per year. Not sure if you get your money back if they refuse.
At this point, what is the rationale behind limiting .TLDs anyway? Is it simply a means to create artificial scarcity so that the companies who control .TLDs can make money? Or is there a legitimate technical reason?
If these become really popular won't they break a ton of code? "My email is hello.peeps@my.feedback"
Personally, I've seen users struggle with anything other than .com. I had a .net once and there were so many "I couldn't find your website" issues from users because it wasn't a .com.
I don't particularly recognise any of the registrars. Does anyone have any experience they'd like to share, to help us choose?
101Domain, Inc.
Ascio Technologies
DOMAINREGISTRY.DE
EBrandServices
eNom
EuroDNS
Interlink Co., Ltd.
Key-Systems
Mailcub SAS
MarkMonitor
Name.com
Openprovider
Super Registry Inc.
I use 101Domain, especially for non-.com domains (.io, .ly, etc). It has worked well for me, but I haven't had to contact customer service for anything more serious than letting a domain lapse accidentally, which I got back with no hassle.
They are the type that charges $10,000 per year, but will make a bunch of phone calls and a background check before doing a transfer or a nameserver change.
Not sure they are relevant for the $10/year crowd.
It's pretty much the only .travel I've ever seen, but the domain was just right for the content; it's memorable; and I figure that in an age where people find stuff via Google and not via an increasing number of obscure TLDs, the old "it must be .com" doesn't apply so much. (Probably the leading cycling site in the UK is road.cc, for "cycling club", and they seem to do fine.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-level_doma...