Hacker News Reader

Comment by judge2020 | Hacker News Reader

judge2020

The list of all their owned TLDs are at [0]. There is an icannwiki page with all the ones they’ve applied for, but not just the ones they currently own.

0: https://ntldstats.com/registry/Charleston-Road-Registry-Inc

View on HN

How can a commercial company own a top level domain like ".app"? I get that they own .youtube or .google but isn't that way too generic? Like a company owning the copyright for the word "Company"?

Because gTLDs were sold to the highest bidder; there’s no requirement for them to be sold for the good of humanity. For-profit companies like Verisign own .com and donuts owns a few hundred https://donuts.domains/what-we-do/top-level-domain-portfolio...

Verizon does not own .com in the same way as people owning other gTLDs. They operate it under contract with ICANN

It may seem like a pedantic point, but these top-level domains are not owned. They currently have registry operation rights which does not confer permanent ownership.

These companies don't really "own" the names. They're paying $180k/yr for the privilege of ICANN delegating the responsibility of managing that gTLD to them. But this privilege isn't any kind of legal right; the company doesn't have a deed to or easement on that gTLD that would hold up in court. ICANN has just agreed, as their side of the contract, to 1. accept that company's zone-registration modifications vis-a-vis that gTLD; and 2. to not accept any other third-party entity's zone-registration modifications vis-a-vis the gTLD. But if ICANN don't like what's going on, they always have the right to just cancel the relationship (probably with a pro-rated refund for the rest of the contract period, but still) and then do what they like with the gTLD from there.

The thing I'd compare it most closely to, is an exclusive licensing of IP rights from a copyright-holder to another entity, where those rights include a sub-licensing right. While that contract pertains, the entity who licensed the rights can basically act as if they owned those rights; but the actual legal right-holder can always just revoke the licensing agreement — in the process, either "absorbing" the transitive license grants to themselves, anuling those transitive licenses, or finding a new contract-holder and transferring the "stewardship" of those transitive licenses to them.

For these companies these licenses are pennies, so "own" is probably the right word.

Whether Google owns it legally is irrelevant to the concerns people have regarding the control Google will have. ICANN won't revoke the license agreement if Google is "naughty" and decides to deregister some GoogleSucks.app or ControversialOpinion.app domains. This is Google, and not worth the effort for ICANN to even bother unless the above domains cause enough noise to rock the boat, which they won't. It'll probably be some conservative ("right wing propaganda") or misinformation or plausibly illegal type of domain that everyone will choose to ignore and dismiss for various reasons. End result of this is definitely more censorship.

You're incorrect on the fees. The 180k was the application fee for the 2013 round of new gtlds. Actual on going costs are $6,250 per quarter, plus a cut from each registration or renewal, as per the registry contract.

ICANN can only cancel Registry contracts under specific circumstances. Listed here: https://newgtlds.icann.org/sites/default/files/agreements/ag...

Our company tried to register a TLD with ICANN. ICANN's process was so complicated, when we asked questions, they suggested we hire a law firm to help us. Turns out the partner at the firm was a former ICANN employee so they referred us to their former colleague.

This law firm wanted $250k up front for the application, told us it could take over 2 years, and did not offer any guarantees that the TLD we wanted would be approved. It's a total scam up and down.

I'm no expert on Handshake, but it has a built in open auction system for registering TLDs. It seems to be the best alternative to the ICANN cabal and an actually decent use case for a blockchain. We bought the TLD we wanted on Handshake, and it cost less than $1,000. If we could only get browsers to support it...

https://handshake.org

If browsers supported Handshake just like they do DNS, you can bet you wouldn't have just paid 1000 bucks for a TLD. You'd probably have paid more than what it costs for a TLD under ICANN.

IMHO Europe should do a hard fork of DNS before it is too late. States already mess with the DNS of major telcos for censorship anyways. Regaining control over the new purely capitalist take of the Internet would finally be something good.

(Living in Europe)

I think most countries have already have their own TLD under their control anyway (or under an organisation that they control), and I find a lot of companies for the services I use already using a domain under the country level TLD. In addition, since Europe was mentioned, the .eu TLD is already run by a non-profit appointed by the EU commission.

I'm not really sure what doing a hard fork of DNS would achieve? I wouldn't want the rest of the internet being cut off from me. It would also be incredibly confusing which DNS system is being referred to when giving/receiving a URL.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com