Only the Hitachi company would be allowed to register the .hitachi TLD. Why would they then allow someone to make that subdomain? Your other examples would not be allowed for the same reason.
So Microsoft would create a subdomain for the purposes of that survey. www.whyapplesucks.survey.microsoft](ICANN to allow new generic 'dot-brand' domains - Jun. 20, 2011). Or they would use a special subdomain for all such outsourced tasks: xyz.partner.microsoft for example.
That was my thought too. It was touted today as a way to allow more creative domain names, but I don’t see how that’s a good thing.
It really just looks like a money-grab which is unfortunate considering ICANN is a non-profilt.
As opposed to “it isn’t legitimate unless it ends in .hsbc.com”?
Yeah, my thoughts exactly. What an odd justification.
I call dibs on on “localhost”.
Where and how do they draw the line, though? What if company “XYZ” applies for domain “blah.xyz”, but there is a larger, more well known company named “XYZ”, which has not yet tried to register the domain. Do they sell the domain to the smaller company, or wait until the larger one comes around?
Or, what if they release a domain to a company, and later learn that the domain doesn’t actually belong to the company they thought it should belong to? Are there backsies?
Before this change, they could still accomplish the same thing (and in a nicer way, even) by just using a special subdomain for those tasks (e.g., “whyapplesucks.survey.microsoft.com”).
The more I think about it, the worse it gets.
I’m not a fan of this change, but I don’t think the issues you raise will be a concern for domains based on registered names like Hitachi.
First, the fee is really high. Only large institutions with a strong desire for the domain will apply. While there may be multiple companies named ‘Zenith’, probably only one of those companies will want to pony up the fee. Likewise, casual squatting should not be an issue. Maybe I am missing some obvious examples?
Second, there is an approval process intended to prevent squatting. Unlike regular domain names, you can’t just register for a domain online and get it. Applications will be evaluated to ensure that the requester has a ‘right’ to that domain.
Third, applications will start being accepted at the beginning of the new year. That gives everyone six months to prepare their application. Presumably ICANN will evaluate which requesters have the strongest claim and grant the domains to them. With a published starting point, there should be no reason to have ‘backsies’.
That said, your point applies to generic names like .pizza or .bank. I am not sure how ICANN plans on awarding those. Considering the amount of corruption that occurs with automobile license plate assignments, I can only imaging TLDs would be much, much worse.
Meh. It’s not really a bigger deal than the TLDs that we already have. If confusing URLS or whatever really were a concern, we’d just have .tubes and that would be it.
Hasn’t this been in the works for a while? Here’s a thread from '08. I stand by my comments there…
I want “.1”.
ftp://127.0.0.1 gets a whole new meaning.
A local shopping strip was focusing its branding around a “four” theme, since it has four sections to it (yeah, I know) and at one point was using a web address beginning with “wwww.”
(Not being dummies, they had also made the site accessible via “www.”)
I’m not sure if it’s a good idea or not, as all the justifications for it given essentially boil down to “XYZ.com is longer than XYZ”. I can see some TLDs being useful for so large corporations, particularly ones that have a significant web presence and not just a company site. To that end, a company like Microsoft would certainly want one, as they have a large web presence. But it really does come across as a money grab as I just don’t see why Coke, despite having plenty of money to throw at it, would think .coke is worth the cost when coke.com is already theirs and already using the established standard address.
And if I wanted to go to Microsoft’s website directly by url, what would I type in? Now, I know I can just time in microsoft.com and get there. Would I then just type in microsoft, or home.microsoft or what? If I just want to browse there now to a company by name, I can always use the combined search/url bar and it will bring me right there just by typing microsoft. If anything, it seems to raise confusion.
That said, I do think some additional generic TLDs that require some review or restrictions rather than allowing anyone to buy one would make sense. For instance, I think a .law would make sense, and requiring applicants to provide some proof of their legitimacy as a law firm could make it useful. It’s not unlike knowing that when I see a .gov or a .mil or .edu that it’s definitely a government or military or education-related site. Same for a .xxx or .sex or whatever for porn, and try to get all the porn sites to use those, so those who want it can easily identify it, and those who don’t can easily avoid it.
All the more reason why it’s a bad idea. This scheme would inequitably favor the largest corporations, thus exacerbating the disadvantages that small companies already struggle with.
Additionally, what if there ARE multiple companies that do want to pony up for the same domain name – two different companies in two different nations, for example? Who gets to have their piece of the pie?
It’s a bad idea all around.
The only TLD I can think of that would pay off would be .con - and that would be by typo squatting all legitimate .com domains and displaying ads. That is to say, why would .pizza be worth >$1 million more over 10 years than whatever.com
Unfortunately, that one will be grabbed by the State of Connecticut.
cityhall.hartford.con
www.stateprison.con
www.u.con
english.u.con
pay.tax.con