Is the CZDS open to individuals? I'd like to register and go over the files in an individual capacity, but seems like people have to send requests over to registry operators, which they may or may not grant.
You can register as an individual; but I believe they want a valid phone number and mailing address, and a reason for access.
The requests are mostly automatically approved but there are some outliers who take weeks to approve or will reject the request without more info like faxing an ID.
Requests for all these new TLDs sponsored by Google seem to be approved instantly for what it's worth.
TBH, i enjoy it. Or rather, i sort of wish domains didn't exist - and the flood of these names helps devalue the entire land. Or so i ignorantly assume.
The most annoying thing about them, that's seemed to increase over time, is that for 'premium' names the renewals are the same cost as 'buying' the domain.
At least if you manage to snag a .com/.net/etc, you'll have low yearly renewal fees.
Did anyone else notice that the top of the page says "gett.ing a new domain", but the domain they decided to use instead was "get.ing"? I imagine that whoever picked it expected people to pronounce it "get dot ing", but it just looks like "geting" to me, and I don't even know what that means.
I've heard advice that when trying to name a product, it's a good idea to check Urban dictionary before finalizing a name to make sure you don't accidentally pick something crude. It looks like "gete" is mostly okay though, so they may have gotten lucky here.
(edited "get.ting" to "get.ing" because even when this is what I wanted to talk about I apparently subconsciously refuse to type "geting" as a domain)
> I've heard advice that when trying to name a product, it's a good idea to check Urban dictionary before finalizing a name to make sure you don't accidentally pick something crude
Yeah, imagine picking something like Go Daddy for the name of your company.
I'm curious what part of ICANN's mandate is a failure. My understanding is that introducing new TLDs was part of it.
> 7. The Creation of New gTLDs. The Green Paper suggested that during the period of transition to the new corporation, the U.S. Government, in cooperation with IANA, would undertake a process to add up to five new gTLDs to the authoritative root.
Had public/private key pair cryptography been further along at the beginning of the web, I think we would have wound up with something like public keys that users add a nickname to. Similar to what we already do with phone numbers, but "ownership" locked to a private key.
What happens when you lose your private key? I don't love it, but I'm glad that my domain names are just an entry in a database somewhere that a human can change if necessary. It's a tradeoff I'm willing to make.
Loosing your domain name is a far worse. Not only will you not get it back, but whoever owns it now will get all your web traffic. In contrast even if you loose the private key, you could continue to serve any static assets signed by that key, and create a new private key for future assets.
There would also likely end up being plenty of "phone-book" services where you could go and provide a new private key for your company. We already have some of these: Google (Maps), Yelp, Yellow Pages, etc.
Actually, good point. But that is solvable with better registrar UX. For example, I run a registrar that offers free subdomains, and I'm planning to add support for a long term guarantee, by registering the apex domains for the max time (10 years) and renewing every year.
How many more gTLDs does the world need? Honestly? Perhaps we could add one for every single letter in the Latin alphabet, what.a goo.d ide.a! Let's also add one for all common English suffixes too: .ion would be great to have, as well as .ed and both .ally and .ly exist already. And there are also non-English languages, too!
Of course, .too, .already, .enough, and .please would be amazing additions as well.
I wonder if this TLD being available now will increase the number of scammers and fraudsters scamming clients of ING bank. On the one hand, having quite strong association with the bank name right in the domain name surely must increase trustworthiness of the link, but then the people who bother to read URLs in the first place are probably more likely to notice the scam anyway...
Worse, there will be some number of companies stupid enough to pay for and start using .ing for legitimate reasons further confusing people as to which URLs are legitimate.
New domains rolling out with 'reserved' words that cost $50K+ direct from the registrar. Who is really buying these at this point with so main domain extensions available?
Congratulations to Google on having finally realized their rent-collecting dream. As the company discovers that this revenue stream requires almost no work, I look forward to the slow degradation of every other business line as the company transitions over the next twenty years to 'digital landlord' status.
They do have a business around e-signatures related to the prevalence of pdf for electronic documents. If you go to Adobe.com it is one of their top level menu items "PDF and E-signatures" for instance so seems relatively important to them.
It sure must be nice to be gifted the right to sell these domains for any extortionate price you like... I looked at think.ing and it's a cool 36k eur per year at Namecheap, 43k at (those scumlords) Godaddy.
If you can, get access to czds.icann.org and look over the zone files for .ing and .meme.
No one is registering domains for anything other than trademark protection and speculative squatting.
A lot of money spent for nothing.