4 ms·
But 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 e
by tavavex 3y ago
But 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