3 ms·
This isn't squatting. ICANN specifically allowed applications as a "restricted registry" for a trademarked brand where the applicant could show that such a limi
by mike_d 3y ago
This isn't squatting. ICANN specifically allowed applications as a "restricted registry" for a trademarked brand where the applicant could show that such a limitation on registrations increased the overall safety for consumers. The applicant had to demonstrate that they have broad recognition of the trademarked string (i.e. cocacola or mcdonalds). They also obviously can't profit from this type of delegation by selling registrations and no company is going to sell their brand TLD.
Having every new TLD open to registration would have been a constant battle against things like real-login-page.bankofamerica and such.
https://www.name.com/blog/the-different-types-of-new-gtlds-which-one-is-right-for-you https://www.name.com/blog/the-different-types-of-new-gtlds-w...
- p4bl0 3y agoSo, either ICANN could have just maintained a list a forbidden TLDs (especially for those where even the owner doesn't use it) rather than forcing these corporations to pay for them; or, the money could have been used as a kind of tax on the wealthiest to fund DNS infrastructure and lower the prices of domain names for the rest of us. That clearly didn't happen.
- captn3m0 3y agoYeah, just the interest on this windfall would be enough to lower the ICANN fees forever if treated as an endowment.
- captn3m0 3y agoThe list on the link is primarily unrestricted TLDs (which are supposed to be open to registration for everyone) but are not (yet). Examples are `.ads` by Google, or `.author` by Amazon. There are a few brand TLDs in the list as well which I consider to be legitimate squatting - `.cal`, `.baseball` are considered brand TLDs by ICANN, but Google should not have a monopoly on an entire TLD because they built Google Calendar. `.bofa` for example is a legitimate brand TLD, and is not on the list. If you think a brand TLD on this list is incorrect, corrections/additions are welcome - https://github.com/captn3m0/tld-squatting/blob/main/_data/fakebrands.yml https://github.com/captn3m0/tld-squatting/blob/main/_data/fa...
- junon 3y agoTo be fair, .amazon is on the list and under such logic (which I agree with) shouldn't be. Yes, Amazon is a word/name of a real place, but I doubt many would be registering anything actually related to the Amazon and instead it would be used almost exclusively for abuse.
- tavavex 3y agoBut a lot of these aren't trademark-specific TLDs. They're even listed under the "unrestricted" category. There's no reason why .eat, .here or .ads have to be exclusive to Google, or why .zero, .you, .joy and many others have to be exclusive to Amazon. They just paid to "own" these TLDs and are choosing to do nothing with them.
- captn3m0 3y agoIn a much smaller company, shareholder pressure could have resulted in the TLDs being removed or publicly released (Donuts Inc, for eg - the other large gTLD owner has made all of its TLDs available). For Google and Amazon especially - any potential revenue from these TLDs being opened up is a rounding error.
- mike_d 3y ago> There's no reason why .eat, .here or .ads have to be exclusive to Google People underestimate what it takes to launch a TLD, even for someone like Google. I own a registrar and get weekly emails from smaller registries begging me to promote their latest launch on our homepage. It is a huge financial and manpower burden, so I don't fault them for staggering the launches. Blame ICANN for restricting all applications to a specific window and forcing everyone to front-load grabbing them all. There is no reason newgTLD applications couldn't be open right now if I wanted .hackernews