[HN Gopher] Mixed views on new DNS top level domains
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Mixed views on new DNS top level domains
        
       Author : pcr910303
       Score  : 39 points
       Date   : 2021-08-07 11:07 UTC (11 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (utcc.utoronto.ca)
 (TXT) w3m dump (utcc.utoronto.ca)
        
       | chana_masala wrote:
       | There is barely any viewpoint argued in the article. So vanity
       | tlds may be bad, why??
        
         | flemhans wrote:
         | Yes I was surprised that the article ended after what I thought
         | could be the introduction to the topic
        
         | j56no wrote:
         | JUR just another rant, surprisingly made to the homepage
        
       | j56no wrote:
       | is there a list of the new ones?
        
         | CydeWeys wrote:
         | This is the list of all currently existing TLDs:
         | https://data.iana.org/TLD/tlds-alpha-by-domain.txt
         | 
         | Note that IDN TLDs are presented in punycode in that list (the
         | XN-- ones), so you'd want to convert them to Unicode to see
         | what they actually look like (e.g. many are Chinese
         | characters).
        
         | karmakaze wrote:
         | There's a wikipedia entry--can't speak for its accuracy[0].
         | There's likely more official/accurate lists elsewhere that
         | shouldn't be too hard to find if needed.
         | 
         | [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Internet_top-
         | level_dom...
        
       | 7ewis wrote:
       | I don't like the fact that the prices can wildly differ between
       | different TLDs.
       | 
       | I think it was nice that it was easy to recognise website.com was
       | a website too, whereas website.wtf is less easy to identify, but
       | then now there are more available to makes it easier to get a
       | shorter, better name and can make the pricing more competitive,
       | hopefully driving it lower for everyone.
        
       | robert_tweed wrote:
       | I registered my own name under one of the new gTLDs because it
       | was $10 for a year and I thought, "why not?". I didn't do
       | anything with it, partly because I remained sceptical of the new
       | gTLDs so didn't want to switch anything critical over to it, like
       | my email address.
       | 
       | That is probably just as well, because a year later, it had been
       | reclassified as a "premium" name. The renewal fee was over
       | $400,000.
       | 
       | The fact that the owners of gTLDs can set pricing arbitrarily is
       | the biggest problem in all this. A given domain name usually has
       | no intrinsic value. What gives it value is the effort someone
       | puts into marketing it.
       | 
       | With the new gTLDs, the domain operators are free to offer useful
       | names that aren't trademarks, but are unavailable as .com or
       | similar. Then should anyone build a successful business on that
       | name, they are free to seek arbitrarily high rents.
       | 
       | There is no sense in which you can buy a domain name outright.
       | Nor do the new gTLDs have any form of rent control. That is a
       | fundamental problem with the system as it stands.
        
         | ziml77 wrote:
         | I was looking at gTLDs when getting my own domain. I think I
         | got lucky with the timing because all the desirable ones had
         | already classified the name I wanted as being premium. Around
         | the same price you're saying your renewal would have been. I
         | ended up going with firstnamelastname.net.
         | 
         | I don't thing it's a good idea for anyone to use a gTLD for
         | anything serious. Even without the prices being uncapped,
         | there's no guarantee that a gTLD will stick around. Would be
         | crappy to lose a domain because the company who owns the gTLD
         | went out of business or just didn't want to deal with handling
         | domains anymore.
        
           | CydeWeys wrote:
           | > Even without the prices being uncapped, there's no
           | guarantee that a gTLD will stick around.
           | 
           | Actually, there is a guarantee that a gTLD will stick around.
           | ICANN correctly determined that this would be ruinous to the
           | health of the Internet as a whole if entire TLD's worth of
           | domains could simply disappear, hence they set up procedures
           | to guard against it, including a required daily data escrow
           | deposit from all TLD operators that can be used to spin up
           | the TLD by another registry operator if the worst catastrophe
           | were to happen (which, it should be pointed out, has never
           | happened). For more info see:
           | 
           | https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en
           | https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/data-escrow
           | 
           | The only TLDs that have ever ceased operation entirely, like
           | .xperia in the linked articles, are closed brand TLDs that
           | were never used for anything, were never available for
           | external registration, and that the company in question (Sony
           | here) simply got tired of paying the annual fees on given
           | their lack of use of it. These TLD discontinuations don't
           | threaten anything.
        
             | ziml77 wrote:
             | That's good to know! Still worried about the prices getting
             | out of control if someone thinks you have a valuable name,
             | but at least it's not too easy to nuke an entire TLD.
        
             | oauea wrote:
             | Oh good, it will remain available at the low, low price of
             | half a million per year. That soothes my worries entirely.
        
               | CydeWeys wrote:
               | You're painting a very broad brush with that one extreme
               | outlier. Most registries don't operate like that; stay
               | away from the few that do.
        
         | CydeWeys wrote:
         | What was the TLD with the huge price hike?
        
         | throw0101a wrote:
         | > _That is probably just as well, because a year later, it had
         | been reclassified as a "premium" name. The renewal fee was over
         | $400,000._
         | 
         | At that price it may be cheaper to simply create your own TLD.
        
         | devwastaken wrote:
         | .coms are cheaper now anyways with cloudflare. 8 years pre-
         | purchased for $60.
        
         | cpach wrote:
         | Yikes. That's very lousy behaviour of them.
         | 
         | Thanks for the warning.
        
         | iomcr wrote:
         | Was it {firstname}{lastname}.gtld or only one of those?
        
           | robert_tweed wrote:
           | It was just my last name. So in a way surprising it wasn't
           | classified as premium to begin with. But the fact such a
           | concept exists at all, and the goalposts can move at any
           | time, is the troubling part.
        
         | ryan29 wrote:
         | Which TLD was it? I've been trying to find an example of a
         | domain being reclassified as premium _while registered_ for
         | almost two years. Are you sure you didn't let it expire?
         | 
         | That violates the registry agreement AFAIK. They're not allowed
         | to arbitrarily change the price for a registered domain. Can
         | you give more detail?
        
       | axaxs wrote:
       | My view, as someone who did a lot of work around it:
       | 
       | Purely a money grab by everyone involved. In what I'd consider a
       | more normal fashion, ICANN could have slowly picked and rolled
       | out sensible new TLDs to operators interested.
       | 
       | Instead, it was a free for all where you had to pay an insane fee
       | to ICANN mafia to even apply, and get in bidding wars if multiple
       | applications existed.
       | 
       | If you won, you had to go find and pay your own registry, too.
       | So, you had registries preemptively spamming local businesses
       | convincing them to buy a tld and use that registry.
       | 
       | Many thought they were gonna make a fortune. The only one who
       | made a fortune was ICANN and to some extent, registries. That's
       | probably why owners keep trying to jack up prices, they still
       | want their windfall.
       | 
       | Don't even get me started on how terrible ICANN is organized. The
       | whole digital archery fiasco should be enough for nobody to ever
       | put any faith in them. Anyone with a quarter of brain function
       | would realize how terrible that idea is.
        
       | shiado wrote:
       | TLDs are like neighborhoods or ZIP codes, you will be judged for
       | being in a bad one even if you are a good person. That's why I
       | suggest consulting this site before you register anything to make
       | sure you don't accidentally get a TLD that is used mostly for
       | abuse, which many of the newer ones are.
       | 
       | https://www.spamhaus.org/statistics/tlds/
        
       | iomcr wrote:
       | I do have a complaint about relatively new TLDs. Did you know
       | .forum domains are $500 to $2000 per year?
       | 
       | We live in a world where everybody is complaining about
       | censorship and nazis, but one of the best new TLDs for an
       | independent forum is prices out 99% of the market!
       | 
       | Of course, there are plenty of TLDs in the $5-$20 range, which
       | are great, but this will cause cheap TLDs to become crowded and
       | .forum will be a ghost town.
       | 
       | Forums generally don't make money. Any forum making money,
       | probably isn't making enough to budget $500 extra in another
       | domain. Any company that would say "wow, $2000/year is
       | acceptable" would already have something like
       | {forum,community}.acme.com.
        
         | ziml77 wrote:
         | Is it the best TLD for in independent forum? It could be
         | completely irrational on my part but I'd be hesitant to click a
         | search result that would bring me to a .forum domain.
        
         | beprogrammed wrote:
         | Well, to be fair, censorship and fascism are worse things than
         | extortionate domain name prices. Though both are bad.
        
           | iomcr wrote:
           | While true, a free and open web is generally desirable, and
           | we'd like to keep the barriers of entry for federation to a
           | minimum. If someone was ready to start mycool.forum, but
           | doesn't have $500/yr to start a website, they must now wade
           | through a garbage pile of "minimum $2,000 bid" squatted
           | domains, weird TLDs that could declare your domain premium
           | and charge $400,000/yr at any time, maybe even if the only
           | thing "premium" about the name is that your website got
           | popular, or buy a domain like themycoolforum50.com.
           | 
           | This might be only one managable issue, but these things add
           | up, and the more they add up, the more facebook becomes the
           | only website people use.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-08-07 23:02 UTC)