Does anyone know if subdomains on these gTLDs are required to be offered/sold publicly once acquired?<p>I don't understand how some of them can be granted to just one company when they are a "global" namespace, and then not allowed by the public to purchase or use.<p>I'm not talking about ones that are the name of a well known huge company that is unlikely to disappear.
Suggestion: Allow the user to sort the list by number of applications.
More applications should mean they have to compete on price tbh.<p>Sure if AirBnb wants to administer .airbnb and charge a lot, whatever.<p>But `.bit` domains should be some bargain basement price if so many people want to run it.
Top five: .agent (13 applicants), .bit (11), .hub (10), .brand (10), .api (10)
so many TLDs that seem to be exploiting similarity to existing ones?<p>.cmo/.con are particularly egregious
I wonder if xyz.com is simply requesting TLDs based on domains their users enter, so cmo and con come from their users’ typos rather than malicious intent. It would be similar to how some registrars park domains when a user checks if a domain is available.
Yes, these should be banned.
Very nice! Some more sorting and filtering options would be handy, and some more view options, so each TLD doesn't take up half the screen when it has a lot of applicants.<p>PS - Your Source link is a 404.
I have been looking for an expansion of TLDs that are short, have a decent ring for self-hosting stuff, and don't sound too scammy.<p>Like `.link` is pretty cool but it's expensive because one of those personal-link-inbio companies created it and wants to cash in on it.<p>Just from scanning these, maybe:<p>* .air<p>* .bit<p>* .hub<p>* .iam<p>* .index (long but I love how universal it is)<p>* .lab<p>* .log<p>* .pod<p>* .port<p>* .self is <i>really</i> interesting, wonder if that would take off<p>* .sys<p>* .zen
Very useful! I found this article a really good summary of the gtld situation:<p><a href="https://www.wired.com/story/icann-top-level-domains-meow/" rel="nofollow">https://www.wired.com/story/icann-top-level-domains-meow/</a>
I don't want to see any new domains, we rely on the domain as a source of security -- I know, it sucks, but it's all we have, to look at that browser address bar and confirm it is really mybank.com that is asking for your login details, and each time someone adds a TLD, you have the risk of mybank.us, or mybank.info or mybank.bank confusing users. Enough already with the TLD.
The auctioning off of the GTLD space for private gain is one of the most egregious and offensive public-private wealth transfer grafts of our century.
> .lan<p>Don't you dare, Coffee Danger LLC
i'd like to see this (filter / exclude) the dotBrand or brand-specific TLDs, as they are not open to the general public.<p>like .playstation or .airbnb or .nike
How many of these are companies that learnt from the 1990s and made sure they registered their own name/tradmarks etc rather than having to buy them off scalpers, even though they might have no plans to use them?
Finally .scam might be something for all us scammer, I'm tired of getting mixed up with a bunch of honest-looking people.<p>None of this seem to have any rhyme or reason. What's the reason for these to exists, besides to raise funds for whorever is selling these?
The cat is out of the bag. TLDs are now the domains of the rich. Why not have .taylorswift? It's just 250k <a href="https://gtlds.fyi/names/taylorswift" rel="nofollow">https://gtlds.fyi/names/taylorswift</a><p>As for the rest, meh, these could be "I have an idea for a domain" but the domain costs 250k
I'm exhausted by all of the new gTLDs at this point, opening them up to specific companies and organizations basically violated the entire purpose of a gTLD in the first place.
Every possible word can become a TLD :)
Why are these TLDs so tightly bound to a specific organization? Why can't their registration be more open? Keeping them so locked down makes them useless. Or am I misunderstanding something?
Am I the only one who's not a fan of these new, longer TLDs? IMO TLDs should be two or three characters. I'm not sure why I feel this way, but there's something unwieldy about a TLD like .cooking.
What we really need is one char TLDs so we bring back WWW<p>eg: www.x
In theory it can be shorter. Imagine good.cooking is shorter than goodcooking.com<p>But every one of these plays with all sorts of collisions of user expectations. "word.cloud.microsoft" is one of those URLs that will never look right to me, but is now a corporate staple.
2 to 4 chars is a good range.
ICANN announcement about what this is: <a href="https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-reveals-2026-round-applications-for-new-generic-top-level-domains-07-10-2026-en" rel="nofollow">https://www.icann.org/en/announcements/details/icann-reveals...</a>