Registry Agreement Termination Information Page | Hacker News Reader

Registry Agreement Termination Information Page

icann.org

48 pointsfanf221 comments

Surprised to see .theguardian tld there. They ask for donation and spend money on this ?

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

> 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.

> 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.

> 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...

Possibly this?

https://www.wired.com/story/google-wants-to-kill-the-url/

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.

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

I never really got thr concept of having company names/projects/etc at the top level.

Each one generated revenue for the DNS system administratots.

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.

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.

I'd love if oracle used .java to store documentation.

s/store/expose/

Yeah .com .pl .sh were all total disasters!

ironic that '.active' is now inactive!

Remarkable for so many to have invested that amount of money, only to abandon the project so quickly.

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.

https://www.icann.org/resources/agreement/xn--4gq48lf9j-2015... ← What happened here? Seems like a real oddball from Wal-Mart, of all places.

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?

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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com