4 ms·

I really, really hope I can register for .CASHBACKBONUS URLs in the future. Sure, my homepage is... tmcw.CASHBACKBONUS

by tmcw 14y ago

duskwuff 14y ago
One of many instances of companies registering their names, trademarks, and slogans. There's also .AFAMILYCOMPANY, for instance, proposed by Johnson & Johnson. I seriously hope that ICANN blanket-rejects all proposals which include trademarks, on the grounds that they would be of no use to anyone other than the trademark holder.
- tg3 14y ago
  based on other articles on this topic, it seems that allowing for trademark names is half the point (e.g. Canon.com switching to .Canon). These companies aren't applying for the string so that others may use it, they're applying so that their company brand is all over their domain.
  - duskwuff 14y ago
    Right. And that's something I disagree with -- it's my position that TLDs should only be created where they will be some sort of utility to a significant segment of Internet users. Besides, working with my example of .AFAMILYCOMPANY, I'm not sure that J&J even has any good uses in mind for it. They do have afamilycompany.com registered, but it doesn't appear to have any DNS records set up.
    - wmf 14y ago
      TLDs should only be created where they will be some sort of utility to a significant segment of Internet users. Why? Another entry in the root zone costs almost nothing.
      - goforit 14y ago
        Is $185K almost nothing?
        wmf 14y ago
        I mean it costs the Internet almost nothing. If a company voluntarily pays $185K for a domain, that's no business of mine.
- sneak 14y ago
  I seriously hope that ICANN blanket-rejects all of this. Polluting the top-level namespace is a fool's game. This is one of the shittiest ideas ever to happen to the Internet.
  - duskwuff 14y ago
    I dunno. There's a few ideas in there which might work well if managed properly, like .APP and .WEB. They're well-hidden in the sea of crap, though, and the world can certainly go on without them.

I really, really hope I can register for .CASHBACKBONUS URLs in the future. Sure, my homepage is... tmcw.CASHBACKBONUS

by tmcw 14y ago

I really, really hope I can register for .CASHBACKBONUS URLs in the future. Sure, my homepage is... tmcw.CASHBACKBONUS

One of many instances of companies registering their names, trademarks, and slogans. There's also .AFAMILYCOMPANY, for instance, proposed by Johnson & Johnson. I seriously hope that ICANN blanket-rejects all proposals which include trademarks, on the grounds that they would be of no use to anyone other than the trademark holder.

tg3 14y ago
based on other articles on this topic, it seems that allowing for trademark names is half the point (e.g. Canon.com switching to .Canon). These companies aren't applying for the string so that others may use it, they're applying so that their company brand is all over their domain.
- duskwuff 14y ago
  Right. And that's something I disagree with -- it's my position that TLDs should only be created where they will be some sort of utility to a significant segment of Internet users. Besides, working with my example of .AFAMILYCOMPANY, I'm not sure that J&J even has any good uses in mind for it. They do have afamilycompany.com registered, but it doesn't appear to have any DNS records set up.
  - wmf 14y ago
    TLDs should only be created where they will be some sort of utility to a significant segment of Internet users. Why? Another entry in the root zone costs almost nothing.
    - goforit 14y ago
      Is $185K almost nothing?
      - wmf 14y ago
        I mean it costs the Internet almost nothing. If a company voluntarily pays $185K for a domain, that's no business of mine.
sneak 14y ago
I seriously hope that ICANN blanket-rejects all of this. Polluting the top-level namespace is a fool's game. This is one of the shittiest ideas ever to happen to the Internet.
- duskwuff 14y ago
  I dunno. There's a few ideas in there which might work well if managed properly, like .APP and .WEB. They're well-hidden in the sea of crap, though, and the world can certainly go on without them.