nmridul 290 days ago [-]
Surprised to see .theguardian tld there. They ask for donation and spend money on this ?
tedivm 289 days ago [-]
Lots of companies applied for "Brand TLDs", which are not the same as running a full registrar and not nearly as expensive but did require that you show you have the trademark for the name.

https://icannwiki.org/Brand_TLD

aequitas 290 days ago [-]
> For the avoidance of doubt, ICANN's Preliminary Determination shall not prohibit ICANN from delegating the gTLD pursuant to a future application process for the delegation of top-level-domains, subject to any processes and objection procedures instituted by ICANN in connection with such application process intended to protect the rights of third parties.

So not really a graveyard. They can be registered again under the normal conditions that apply.

With Google's mission to remove the URL from the browser and these TLD's often being considered fishy (in terms of spam detection etc). I can understand there is little value for companies to obtain/keep these other than prevent squatting.

liamcardenas 290 days ago [-]
> With Google's mission to remove the URL from the browser...

What evidence is there for this? I searched and I couldn't find anything.

Is this[1] what you are referring to? Because that, in my opinion, is just a minor UI change -- not a fundamental shift in the browser experience, as you seem to imply.

[1] https://www.ghacks.net/2018/08/28/chrome-experiment-hides-se...

tonysdg 290 days ago [-]
51lver 289 days ago [-]
When was the last time a google link took you to the url that was displayed below it?

They don't treat links honestly at all anymore (including javascript clickjacking, not just tracking links). Direct navigation is not in their best interests at all anymore. Yes, they want to kill the URL.

duskwuff 290 days ago [-]
> other than prevent squatting.

And something that became clear during the application process was that squatting is not going to be an issue for gTLDs. There's ample time for a rightsholder to object to a problematic registration.

pureliquidhw 290 days ago [-]
Was interesting to look into Walmart's xn--4gq48lf9j.

Turns out that translates to chinese(?) characters for Number One Store:

https://namestat.org/xn--4gq48lf9j

tehlike 290 days ago [-]
I never really got thr concept of having company names/projects/etc at the top level.
fjsolwmv 290 days ago [-]
Each one generated revenue for the DNS system administratots.
vizzah 290 days ago [-]
Corporates mostly, who have with (little) time realised that it makes no commercial sense to keep such an extension secured. We are yet to see graveyard for some (most) of those novelty consumer-facing gTLDs. Give it another couple of years.
ksec 290 days ago [-]
It was the stupidest idea in Internet History. How about stopping .zip, .exe .rar or .dll as gTLDs.

And the most important one .Web? Still no where to be seen.

fanf2 290 days ago [-]
Yeah .com .pl .sh were all total disasters!
dcbadacd 290 days ago [-]
I'd love if oracle used .java to store documentation.
kencausey 289 days ago [-]
s/store/expose/
gumby 290 days ago [-]
ironic that '.active' is now inactive!
billpg 290 days ago [-]
Remarkable for so many to have invested that amount of money, only to abandon the project so quickly.
sdwisely 290 days ago [-]
yeah, most of them you have to wonder why they bothered and others you have to wonder why they would let go of them.

.mcdonalds for example seems like a strange one to let go of even if just for easy memorable addresses people see in store.

perhaps their lack of easy recognition for the user as a url in that context.

yellowapple 289 days ago [-]
https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/xn--4gq48lf9j-2015... ← What happened here? Seems like a real oddball from Wal-Mart, of all places.
TheBill 290 days ago [-]
I'm surprised at how many techco's let go of their own gtld - from a security standpoint wouldn't it make sense for them to maintain their own SSL & Domains, especially for deployed hardware - URL must match regex of domain & SSL = list of valid certs?
duskwuff 290 days ago [-]
There's no technical benefit to operating your own TLD for internal use. You get all the same benefits under a normal domain name, without the operating costs of a TLD.
OnlyRepliesToBS 290 days ago [-]
snakeoil