[HN Gopher] The .ing top-level domain
___________________________________________________________________
The .ing top-level domain
Author : djha-skin
Score : 73 points
Date : 2023-11-01 16:07 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blog.google)
(TXT) w3m dump (blog.google)
| Sander_Marechal wrote:
| Great. There's a Dutch bank called ING. I can't wait for all the
| phish.ing to start. IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge
| mistake and a blatant money-grab.
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| They already got the bank.ing domain name.
| agilob wrote:
| but do they have fuckof\f.ing for submitting complaints?
|
| Edit: HN doesn't accept FO as one word, it replaces the last
| `f` with `i`. Try it yourself.
| cbsks wrote:
| Seems to work for me: Fuckoff fuckoff.ing
| jackbravo wrote:
| I only see *** ***.ing
| mindcrime wrote:
| Is this just a trick to see how many people you can get to
| type 'fuckoff'? :-)
| agilob wrote:
| Let me test it again...
|
| Edit: No I swear, when I typed fuckingoff.ing and post
| the comment it shows as fuckingofi.ing to me. I edited
| the post a dozen of times and it always displayed
| something else. I tested it even on two browsers!
| gpderetta wrote:
| hunter2
|
| I don't understand, it seems to work for me.
| MongoTheMad wrote:
| I am old. I forgot about this hunter2 password filter
| phish reference.
| corobo wrote:
| hunter2 is 20 years old next year, just to make everyone
| else feel old too
| KeplerBoy wrote:
| And they use it to remind people that the .ing tld is a bad
| idea.
| SXX wrote:
| Sadly phish.ing is over $1000 / year.
| have_faith wrote:
| But think of the return
| jowea wrote:
| Think of how funny it will be when you send out a social
| engineering training test email with that URL to your
| company and see who falls for it.
| codetrotter wrote:
| https://we.are.totally.not.phish.ing/this-is-
| legit/link.php?really=just-click-it&fill-in=your-
| pii&submit=true
| dottjt wrote:
| Wouldn't it be called fish.ing instead, so you'd trick users.
| valianteffort wrote:
| Thank obama for that one
| phkahler wrote:
| >> IMHO all those new TLDs are just a huge mistake and a
| blatant money-grab.
|
| Especially with this one. There is no room for competition
| since each verb can only be used once with the ing suffix.
| Well, competition for who is willing to pay the most, but from
| the consumer side there can only be one URL.
| toast0 wrote:
| i mean, if you can't get fuck.ing/cool, you can go with
| reallyfuck.ing/cool or getsurf.ing gosurf.ing learnsurf.ing
| or justhang.ing/out etc
|
| I think I'm at my limit of dumb domain names for no reason
| though, so I'll pass on this round.
| supermatt wrote:
| Reallyfuckingcool.net or .org available, same for
| getsurfing, learnsurfing and justhangingout. With all these
| domains there's no real point unless you are getting a
| dictionary word or a specific name, imho.
| FireInsight wrote:
| reallyfuckingcool.ing
| zymhan wrote:
| Great for an HVAC company
| pdntspa wrote:
| Which just outlines how it is a money-grab for existing
| property owners. Yet another stupid vanity domain you're
| forced to add to your portfolio!
| expertentipp wrote:
| Mobile app is already first class citizen at ING in some EU
| countries. One is unable to make transactions or even is locked
| out completely from all online channels after losing access to
| their mobile app, or if their app simply stops responding on
| tapping the "Confirm" button. Web is merely second class
| citizen. No idea how they arrived to this retarded architectue.
| Submitting any kind of architectural feedback to a bank is
| hopeless and helpless, these fuckers always know better.
| taway1237 wrote:
| > No idea how they arrived to this retarded architecture
|
| 2FA is known to increase security drastically. It's easy to
| understand why it's a good idea.
|
| EU banks in particular do this because 2FA for banks is
| mandated by a EU level directive.
|
| > Submitting any kind of architectural feedback to a bank is
| hopeless and helpless, these fuckers always know better.
|
| In this case they clearly do.
| aidenn0 wrote:
| There are lots of options for 2FA that don't require me to
| install a bloated and buggy app that only supports one
| bank.
| expertentipp wrote:
| In at least one EU country the only available free of
| charge second factor of 2FA at ING is their FULL MOBILE
| BANKING APP. You're posting a comment at HN explaining that
| "mobile banking app is 2FA because security because EU",
| are you working there?
| buybackoff wrote:
| Hm, last time I tried 3 years ago paper mails were their only
| channel (after opening an account online). They were so past
| century. If they do anything with this TLD before improving
| their basic banking platform/UX it will only prove the point
| of how retarded they have been.
| heipei wrote:
| Ugh, when I saw the HN headline about this TLD I thought it
| belonged to ING Group, just like .barclays and .chase belong to
| their corporate owners. Just shows how suited this TLD is for
| phishing...
| s3p wrote:
| Don't they sell .zip TLDs now too?
| rekoil wrote:
| Yes, they do, huge mistake
|
| ...but a lot of fun!
| ddlsmurf wrote:
| or maybe they'll buy a whole bunch of insult domains
| imveryunhappywith.ing dontuse.ing,
| yourmotherhasapreferenceformassagetoolsfrom.ing
| withinboredom wrote:
| that's so insult.ing
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Yeah but what are the AOL Keywords for these sites?
| cjdrake wrote:
| Nobody owns f**.ing yet?
| ahmedfromtunis wrote:
| It's still available, I checked. It just happen to cost 12.5k
| USD.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Just making expensive land out of the ether.
| broast wrote:
| I don't really get godaddys pricing on these or what exactly
| they buy you. They're claiming this price is to preregister
| to maximize your chance to own it. There is a base rate of
| $19.99 per year but depending on what word you enter, it
| quotes up to $12k
|
| Bang.ing = 12k; Smash.ing = 3k; Gni.ing = 100;
| Whyaresomecheaper.ing = 19.99
| kykeonaut wrote:
| b.ing goes for 130k
| mywittyname wrote:
| Not included: lawyer fees to defend yourself against the
| inevitable lawsuit from MS when someone there realizes
| they need to own it.
| olalonde wrote:
| Bitcoin.ing shows up as $129,999.99/yr. I think I'll pass.
|
| https://www.godaddy.com/domainsearch/find?checkAvail=1&doma
| i...
| NKosmatos wrote:
| That's not too expensive for some "entrepreneurs" ;-)
| Especially in the long run it might be a good investment.
| phkahler wrote:
| dat.ing is still available.
| DerekBickerton wrote:
| Awesome https://who.is/whois/dat.ing
| genezeta wrote:
| dingal seems to be available too.
| RagnarD wrote:
| For a mere $37,500, including renewals.
| drcongo wrote:
| I don't quite get why Google are allowed to operate as TLD market
| these days.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| > suisse.ing
|
| Yeah, excellent.
| cochne wrote:
| For those who are unaware 'engineering' in Swiss German is
| "Ingenieurwissenschaften"
| tempay wrote:
| Is that an obvious association to the relavent audience?
| Mixing the French "suisse" with the German abbreviated "ing"
| is a little odd to my (french) eyes. Or is suisse also common
| in Swiss German?
| hnbad wrote:
| IDK how representative I am but as a German "Suisse" is
| clearly referring to Switzerland (maybe because it's in
| some Swiss brand names, e.g. Credit Suisse?) and my two
| associations with "ing" are ING direct banking and
| industrial engineering (outside the Bachelor/Master system
| the degree title prefix for a professional engineer was/is
| commonly indicated as "Dipl. Ing.").
|
| But I wouldn't overthink this. Someone likely pitched this
| as a clever marketing campaign to show "technological
| leadership" (the news section has an article dedicated to
| the site being one of the first .ing domains as if this is
| a meaningful technological achievement) and got funding for
| it. That doesn't mean the site will be there or be
| maintained a few years from now.
| emaro wrote:
| No, Suisse isn't common in Swiss German at all, except for
| the 'brand', e.g. same as Swiss.
|
| suisse.ing is really weird though for someone like me who
| is from Switzerland and speaks German and English.
| huhtenberg wrote:
| Given that French cantons don't speak German and German
| cantons would rather speak English than be caught speaking
| French, no, I doubt this linguistic concoction is obvious
| to either.
|
| _Might_ work in Fribourg, which is bilingual, but that 's
| still a stretch.
| kkarimi wrote:
| Google went from allowing you to buy domains with one click to
| now showing you logos of companies you can buy them from, not
| even making them clickable
| ravetcofx wrote:
| Interest(.ing)ly I could right click to open in new tab
| tlhunter wrote:
| I noticed the same thing! Leave it to one of the world's
| largest monopolies to botch such a basic call to action.
| gnu8 wrote:
| The DNS is serious internet infrastructure, not your play toy.
|
| The practice of selling TLDs to every two bit dotcom was a
| mistake and needs to end.
| cnity wrote:
| Domain registration is the most fascinating interaction between
| multiple outlooks. There's the true hacker spirit of DNS
| resolution as a technology. There's the lawful bureaucracy of
| ICANN shoe-horning the technology into a legal framework. Then
| there's the capitalism of registry "operators" who appear to
| exist almost solely to navigate ICANN.
|
| It really feels like there ought to be a better system.
| riffic wrote:
| domains are almost as Lindy (a concept that explains the
| longevity of things like ideas or technology) as circuit
| switched telephone numbers. We're not going to shake the
| concept away for a very long time.
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telephone_number
| acheron wrote:
| But ICANN makes a lot of money off of it, and isn't that the
| important thing?
| zokier wrote:
| The mistake was to let Postel mismanage DNS pretty much alone
| without any significant oversight or defined policies, that set
| the groundwork for dns to be free for all wild west of which
| the current situation is just natural consequence
| postalrat wrote:
| Whats the problem? Are TLDs running out?
| Const-me wrote:
| I believe the main problem is lack of competition.
|
| When a customer registers geographical domains, or old school
| domains like com / net, they can migrate to any other
| registrar they wish. This option guarantees reasonable prices
| for customers, even in the very long run.
|
| When a customer registers their domain under TLDs like hot /
| deals / express they can't move away unless they're fine
| losing their domain name as the result. Most of these TLDs
| are owned by for-profit companies. IMO, this lack of
| competition pretty much guarantees the prices will eventually
| go way higher to extract more profit for these companies.
|
| A while ago, people faced a similar problem with mobile
| telephone numbers. Many countries have solved the issue with
| legal measures, they force mobile operators to allow users to
| migrate to competing operators while keeping their old phone
| number. Until we have laws forcing internet domain names
| portability (similar to phone numbers portability), I
| personally plan to stay away from these new top-level
| domains.
| bluish29 wrote:
| So as I understand, they sold the Google domain business to
| Squarespace but will keep Google Registry with all its
| questioning new TLDs like .zip.
| riffic wrote:
| there's a clear (to the general public, it's absolutely not at
| all clear) separation of concerns between registries,
| registrars, and registrants.
|
| Google Domains was a registrar.
|
| the Registry itself has some arcane and obfuscated corporate
| name that was something entirely different from Google LLC
| (Charleston Road Registry Inc)
| bluish29 wrote:
| > the Registry itself has some arcane and obfuscated
| corporate name that was something entirely different from
| Google LLC (Charleston Road Registry Inc)
|
| That's interesting, more interesting is that Google created
| this Inc to workaround ICANN requirements
|
| "Charleston Road Registry (CRR), also known as Google
| Registry, is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Google. Because
| ICANN requires that registrars and registries remain separate
| entities, and Google is an ICANN-accredited registrar, CRR
| exists as a separate company from Google. We offer equivalent
| terms to all registrars in terms of pricing, awarding
| domains, or any other domain operations; we'll partner with
| any ICANN-accredited registrars that are interested in our
| domains and meet any additional criteria that we set for a
| TLD." [1]
|
| [1] https://www.registry.google/faqs/
| junon wrote:
| .me in particular is moving to square space, and Google shut
| off all of my automatic renews because of it, wreaking havoc
| when a few of them expired recently.
|
| Just as a heads up.
| lagniappe wrote:
| I get the idea sometimes that the "concept" of a TLD is being
| destroyed. Whether that be intentionally or unintentionally, I
| get the hints that we're headed toward AOL keywords all over
| again.
| zokier wrote:
| The "concept" of tlds was already pretty much destroyed with
| .com boom. Even in late 90s there was basically no true
| organization or hierarchy on the top level, .com/.org/.net
| etc were all free for all and most cctlds did not establish
| any 2nd level domains either (uk being prominent counter-
| example)
| willk wrote:
| They're adding ".mov" too. Freaking amazing from a threat
| actor's point of view.
| baal80spam wrote:
| Is b.ing already taken? If not, buy it ASAP!
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Where does this land legally now? Could Microsoft go to ICANN
| and demand you hand it over for the registration fee or is it
| first come first serve?
| imbusy111 wrote:
| Yes, they can demand you hand it over and you will hand it
| over.
| jancsika wrote:
| Do they have to pay you for it?
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Even if Brad Ing bought the domain to host his personal
| blog?
| spurgu wrote:
| That's insane to me.
|
| Edit: I kind of get it with .com domains, but _all_ TLDs?
| mywittyname wrote:
| Pretty much. It is a trademark and holders have to defend
| against infringements if they want to keep it.
|
| You might win in court/arbitration if you have a
| legitimate reason for owning the domain, but you're going
| to need _deep pockets_ to pull it off and be willing to
| put up with the harassment of a company that has infinity
| money and wants to crush you for sport.
| rascul wrote:
| Uzi Nissan didn't hand over his domain.
| riffic wrote:
| it's not that simple lol. there's a whole UDRP process they
| need to jump through.
|
| https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/
| lmkg wrote:
| MS would do the same thing they already did with wwwbing.com
| and binf.com: go through the arbitration process to get them
| repossessed.
| pests wrote:
| Did everyone forget about the Mike Rowe Soft ordeal? 17 year
| old Mike Rowe started his own web company and named it
| MikeRoweSoft.com (on purpose, he knew he was making a pun.)
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_v._MikeRoweSoft
| throwaway447 wrote:
| For a teen it shows some balls. But he basically would have
| would have gotten trouble in most jurisdictions with this
| name.
|
| You could not run an auction site as ibay.com
|
| But you could still use the string in another context. e.g.
| eBayern
|
| (Bayern=Bavaria)
| notfed wrote:
| Just wait until Microsoft introduces the .oogle top-level
| domain!
| kykeonaut wrote:
| For the incredible and low price of 130K.
| rantee wrote:
| You can still grab bl.ing for the promo price of $3,899!
| (11/1/23 ~3pm ET GoDaddy quote)
| ge96 wrote:
| nice, going to open a lot of doors
|
| imagine someone automates buying all the verbs(?)
| mindcrime wrote:
| Our new service, automat.ing lets you do just that!
| SXX wrote:
| It's exactly what Google want you to do. They made majority
| verbs prohibitevely expensive premium domains to take their
| cut.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Which is extra dumb because people won't recognize danc.ing
| as a legitimate domain and the owners are going to have to
| pay up for dancing.com or end up with a cheaper alternative
| called like thedancingapp.com.
| agilob wrote:
| The domains are now super expensive (for individual clients), but
| will get cheaper with plan https://www.domainregistry.de/ing-
| domain.html
| nonameiguess wrote:
| Google registry indicates Namecheap is a preferred partner and
| supports .ing: https://www.registry.google/register-a-domain/
|
| Yet when I go to Namecheap and attempt to register a .ing, it
| tells me "unsupported TLD." Which is it?
| coopreme wrote:
| Booooo
| xingped wrote:
| It seems domains are in a "pre-registration" period, of which
| only some subset of registrars seem to be supported at this
| time.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Namecheap isn't supporting the Early Access Program, so if you
| want to buy through them you'd have to wait until General
| Availability in December (and hope no one else got the name
| first through a different registrar that is doing EAP).
| wnevets wrote:
| Can't I wait to buy these with domains.google!
| riffic wrote:
| omg this is awful
| benatkin wrote:
| someone cool snap up spider.ing and use it for something that
| helps democratize the search engine market
| DistractionRect wrote:
| I feel like I should buy
|
| Alloftheth.ing/s
|
| And have it point to my pile of novelty domains which I bought
| for side projects that I've yet to start.
|
| But I feel like whoever owns th.ing should make it a glorified
| wiki site for Thing from the Addams family
| starttoaster wrote:
| I run `thatwas.notverycash.money/ofyou/` and can tell you
| without a doubt that this is a great idea that is not at all
| necessary to act on. You'll get a couple laughs and then it's
| just a $15/year fee for the domain lingering over your head and
| credit card.
| jrmg wrote:
| Details of the original application: https://icannwiki.org/.ing
| choudharism wrote:
| So Google sold Google Domains but continues to dabble in buying
| weird new TLDs? Masterful.
| izolate wrote:
| Nobody is actually doing anything interesting with these. It all
| seems to be marketing landing pages intended to direct you to the
| real URL.
| bakugo wrote:
| Turns out companies don't want to abandon whatever perfectly
| good domain they've already been using for decades just so they
| can have a funny TLD, who would've thought. Only new brands can
| really benefit from it.
| gorkish wrote:
| > Nobody is actually doing anything interesting with these.
|
| Now wait a second, that's not at all true. In my experience
| there are armies of people who use them to launch targeted
| phishing attacks at my business if they buy the goddamn thing
| before I do.
|
| At a certain point if you are lucky enough to have a business
| that's worth targeting, every new gTLD is just another fuck.ing
| security expense.
|
| Is phish.ing available?
| rinze wrote:
| Register.ing sunsett.ing and redirect.ing it to google.com.
| NKosmatos wrote:
| Great, another goldmine "discovered" by Google. They'll make
| loads of money out of thin air and in the meantime allow people
| to create some confus.ing and phish.ing web sites (sorry for the
| pun :-))
| DerekBickerton wrote:
| I've reached generic TLD fatigue. There's a new one each week. I
| regularly buy domains with OVH since they have a wide array of
| TLDs at a good price[0]. Over the years I let many of them expire
| because either 1) I let my dreams die, or 2) I couldn't afford to
| renew it. Mostly it's because I let my dreams die, not financial
| shortcomings though.
|
| [0] https://www.ovhcloud.com/en/domains/tld/
| expertentipp wrote:
| Domain squatting is not what it used to be... unless it's max 5
| characters in total, simply let it go.
| 1970-01-01 wrote:
| That's a very succint way of putting it. Exotic TLDs are
| completely unecessary to deliver content. The more that exist,
| the harder it is to remember them, which is counter to the
| entire point of DNS.
| bakugo wrote:
| Several registrars are already selling general availability pre-
| orders. Does anyone know how this works? I have a feeling that,
| when the general availability period begins, if multiple people
| pre-ordered the same one, all but one of them are going to get
| screwed. Do they at least refund you?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Yes and yes.
|
| If you really want a name badly, pony up more to get it sooner
| and beat out those other people.
| meiraleal wrote:
| It is just pre-order, expensive and worth nothing in the end as
| the good ones will get more bids.
| kioshix wrote:
| bor.ing
|
| The whole TLD is just ugly in my opinion.
| BasilPH wrote:
| I looked at buying transcrib.ing. I got quoted a reasonable price
| of EUR17,99 and a less reasonable setup fee of EUR1.525.570,80.
| I'm curious about the economics: Who gets that money? And I
| suppose you don't pay by credit card.
| ChrisArchitect wrote:
| Google Registry? Thought they were outta that after the fiasco
| and outrage with the sale to Squarespace?
|
| ...guess shouldn't be surprised Google managed to confuse
| everyone with multiple seemingly related services. Doh
| yankput wrote:
| I don't get it, didn't Google sold their domain business?
| forbiddenlake wrote:
| They sold their _registrar_. This is their _registry_.
| ralmidani wrote:
| I checked for cod.ing and they said it was available. I got my
| hopes up and went to Godaddy. It costs over $38,000. I guess in
| some ways that's good because the purchaser would more likely be
| someone who wants to launch a legit business or project rather
| than a squatter. But as others have pointed out, this whole thing
| is a blatant money grab.
| doh wrote:
| Well, fuck.ing costs only $12,999.99/yr.
| baz00 wrote:
| Not joking I seriously considered snagging that. Reckon I
| could turn a profit.
|
| The I realised I'd have to deal with the people who'd want to
| buy it and they are mostly scum.
| YeahThisIsMe wrote:
| Sounds like the perfect group of people to take financial
| advantage of.
| baz00 wrote:
| That is fine until they make much more money exploiting
| people than I did exploiting them.
| disjunct wrote:
| snagg.ing
| throwaway894345 wrote:
| hope no one is squatt.ing on it
| BuyMyBitcoins wrote:
| I prefer the term Scalping, it's much more accurate.
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| You could always settle for eff.ing, for a mere $116.99/yr.
| zarmin wrote:
| or f.ing for $129,999/yr
| saghm wrote:
| I know one-letter domains are popular, but honestly this
| doesn't seem worth 10x fuck.ing at least to me
| throwaway447 wrote:
| You might settle for squirt.ing ....
| binarymax wrote:
| Electronic-Frontier-Foundation-ing?
| benatkin wrote:
| Something I should probably do more of...
| btschaegg wrote:
| ...and then sell wooden furniture there :D
|
| https://wiki.lspace.org/Effing_Forest
| throwaway447 wrote:
| Remember when fuck.yu became fuck.me ?
| ivanmontillam wrote:
| I remember clearly the irony back then!
| ncpa-cpl wrote:
| Did domains from parts of Yugoslavia have to migrate to
| Montenegro? :P
| huhtenberg wrote:
| clusterfuck.ing though is $27/yr
| bognition wrote:
| > Starting today, you can register .ing domains as part of our
| Early Access Period (EAP) for an additional one-time fee. This
| fee decreases according to a daily schedule until December 5
| abroadwin wrote:
| I miss the early days of the internet when the playing field
| was level. You could actually get a really
| cool/good/interesting domain just by thinking of it first, not
| by being rich.
| az226 wrote:
| There should be some system in place like you can only have
| X% of domains not being actively used for a legitimate
| purpose. And if you fall below, you will need to pick Y
| domains to relinquish or they will be randomly relinquished
| for you.
| hn8305823 wrote:
| Well there are annual registration fees and those add up
| quickly if you are squatting on 1000's of domains for 10+
| years.
| mywittyname wrote:
| Define legitimate. There are plenty of domains that point
| to simple images.
|
| I'm with you in spirit, but this is a hard problem to
| solve.
| abroadwin wrote:
| I'd at least define it as "not just parked for profit."
| arp242 wrote:
| But it's trivial to just put something on these domains
| like Wikipedia picture of the day or whatnot, and who's
| to say that's not "valid"? It's just that no one bothers
| now because they don't need to.
|
| In principle I agree, but I don't really see how it can
| be solved in a practical way without a lot of collateral
| damage.
| joe5150 wrote:
| Lots of domains don't necessarily point to anything as
| obvious as a website for perfectly normal reasons,
| either.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| There isn't remotely any possible way to enforce this.
| There are thousands of registrars out there and there's no
| way to know all the domains owned by a single person or
| company. Even if you solve that problem, now you'd just
| have domain squatters spinning up shell LLCs.
|
| Also you have no way to properly define "legitimate".
| thedaly wrote:
| I hate the premium domain concept.
| andersrs wrote:
| Conspiracy theory here: if you go to a big player like GoDaddy
| they'll sell their queries and some party will see the domain
| you want and squat it unless you register right away. Just use
| the whois command in your terminal.
| asylteltine wrote:
| They claim they don't but you know they ABSOLUTELY DO
| dsgnr wrote:
| Networksolutions does this, godaddy doesnt.
| squigz wrote:
| This is the only conspiracy theory I subscribe to as well,
| and will never be convinced otherwise.
| codingdave wrote:
| It is worse than that - it costs $38,000 if you pre-register to
| buy it in December. It costs $1.3 Million if you want to snag
| it today.
|
| This is beyond a money grab.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| It's called a Dutch or descending price auction and it's a
| commonly used price-setting mechanism.
| postalrat wrote:
| Damn. I wanted to buy it today for $10 and sell it for
| $100,000. How dare they take that from me?
| Devasta wrote:
| Another tld to add to the corporate filters.
| sfc32 wrote:
| speak.ing isn't available but luckily for me speaking.ing is
| available at only $38,240.33/year !
| Imnimo wrote:
| So is the way this works that Google pays a bunch of money to
| ICANN, and then they get the .ing TLD, and can make money by
| selling individual .ing domains? Is there like a bidding process
| that ICANN uses to decided who gets the TLD in the first place?
| saghm wrote:
| Yes: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions
| waythenewsgoes wrote:
| In theory this is beneficial as it helps fund the ICANN and
| keep it independent. But the reality is that these are
| effectively money printing machines, effectively out of reach
| for all but large corporations, which bring questionable
| value to the internet in general. I selfishly hope that we
| can establish a free TLD, or at least one which just directly
| funds ICANN operations instead of benefitting rich middle
| men.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Free TLDs end up full of bad actors and then face
| significant legal problems as a result (which they can't
| afford to defend). See e.g.:
| https://krebsonsecurity.com/2023/03/sued-by-meta-freenom-
| hal...
| obelos wrote:
| gerund.ing is only $45/yr!
| nickdothutton wrote:
| Number 1 on the list of things we didn't need.
| hawski wrote:
| What are the limits to what can be a new TLD nowadays? Because
| this seems a bit disappoint.ing and disgust.ing.
| addajones wrote:
| are they insane? Priority for one of the .ing domains I searched
| for is $1,288,999.99 registration fee and renews at
| $38,999.99/yr.
| duderific wrote:
| That's chump change for a big industry player in insurance,
| banking, oil/gas etc.
| hleszek wrote:
| Apparently it is only possible to do a pre-registration of a
| domain name.
|
| I just bought a .ing for 23,07EUR / year on godaddy but someone
| else could still get that domain before me?
|
| What happens in that case? Would I be refunded?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| Yes, you won't pay for it if you don't end up getting it.
| jbverschoor wrote:
| The biggest question is... When will it be cancelled?
| CydeWeys wrote:
| TLDs can't be canceled. At most they end up acquired and run by
| someone else. See:
| https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| ...if we're going to keep doing this, why even have top level
| domains anymore? How do they improve UX?
|
| Writing "draw.com" makes it clear you're referring to a
| (commercial) website. But "draw.ing"? Just drop the stupid dot:
| "drawing".
| layer8 wrote:
| Every new TLD is a new opportunity for making money, and that's
| why they won't be going away anytime soon.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| But making websites harder to find also costs money. "Was it
| 'draw.ing', 'drawi.ng', or just 'draw.com'? Screw it I'm
| using Powerpoint."
|
| Although I suppose making websites harder to find would
| increase Google searches...
| layer8 wrote:
| It doesn't cost money to registries and registrars, who are
| making the money.
| al_borland wrote:
| I think most people already bank on people searching for
| sites vs remembering domain names.
|
| Though now, even with a search, which "draw" result is the
| right one. The TLD can't be used as much of a filter
| anymore.
| Wowfunhappy wrote:
| > I think most people already bank on people searching
| for sites vs remembering domain names.
|
| But that can't be _entirely_ true, or else Canva wouldn
| 't have purchased draw.ing in the first place, they'd
| just stick with Canva.com.
|
| The whole reason these TLDs are desirable is because they
| create easy-to-remember addresses.
| kirse wrote:
| I don't mind it, it's harder for squatters to control the name
| you want and if your product/service takes off eventually you
| just buy the quality TLDs as desired. So many people now just
| follow links through search, mobile apps, social media posts
| (etc) vs. typing them in, so having a mint TLD is becoming less
| important.
|
| Recently I wanted a domain and a squatter was firm on $8k,
| basically just ignored the sales tactics and after some digging
| found the same name at an equally great TLD for ~$250.
|
| Overall it's a win, domain squatters will start to realize
| they're trying to control an increasingly infinite space and
| those of us doing work on a budget have some leverage to not
| support their gouging behavior.
| dodslaser wrote:
| According to GoDaddy fuck.ing is still available. It also
| recommended fuck.glass, fuck.contractors, and fuck.barcelona.
| These new TLDs are pretty neat.
| jedberg wrote:
| If you want liv.ing, it's only $4,000 a year!
| layer8 wrote:
| Interestingly, dy.ing is the same price.
| giarc wrote:
| Launched today but all those companies already have registered
| the domains? So the public didn't get fair access to draw.ing??
| mxuribe wrote:
| Welcome to American capitalism...where there always seems to be
| an inner circle or initial group of people who already got
| first chance at something, and then for the rest of us they
| simply tells us, "hey, everything is equally attainable by
| everyone, you just have to work hard at it...nothing is given
| out for free...yada yada..." This whole domain name business is
| such a BS money grab.
| al_borland wrote:
| I'm surprised Going was in the list. They aren't exactly Adobe.
| PenguinRevolver wrote:
| This is https://fuck.ing awesome!
| kristjank wrote:
| I am gett.ing tired of Google/Alphabet using their de facto "CEO
| of internet searches" position to coerce new gTLDs galore.
| Considering the setup fees mentioned somewhere below, I'm not too
| sure good old modern-art-style money laundering isn't involved
| either.
| tiffanyh wrote:
| Not to be confused with Google selling their Domain business to
| SquareSpace
|
| https://support.google.com/domains/answer/13689670?hl=en
| jerednel wrote:
| The temptation is strong to drop 3.75k on bl.ing
| zakki wrote:
| At least only TLD got broken with many new one.
|
| Long lives . root domain.
|
| Please, we don't need / root domain.
|
| https://www/slashdot/com
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-11-01 23:00 UTC)