Earlier quoted context omitted.
Don't they sell .zip TLDs now too?
Yes, they do, huge mistake ...but a lot of fun!
Explain why it’s a huge mistake, please.
The .ing top-level domain
201–210 of 333 posts
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#202I looked at buying transcrib.ing. I got quoted a reasonable price of €17,99 and a less reasonable setup fee of €1.525.570,80. I'm curious about the economics: Who gets that money? And I suppose you don't pay by credit card.
Google & the registrar, I'd imagine.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#203I'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/
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.
The more often they’re used, the more likely someone will be able to own . or . or whatever, rather than “catching 3-4 letter thing you can say alloud” + “current trend of website name hacking” + “current cc tld used in current trend”.
E.g. “Bit.ly”, “Tindr”, and so on.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#204So as I understand, they sold the Google domain business to Squarespace but will keep Google Registry with all its questioning new TLDs like .zip.
They're adding ".mov" too. Freaking amazing from a threat actor's point of view.
I am genuinely surprised that ICANN allowed .zip and now .mov. That was a very serious failing of their job. dot .. local? or something? was another huge miss on their part.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#205I think eventually, the idea of limited, restricted TLDs will be an amusing historical fact (and that's already the case in some ways). But I do share some of the concern about scams/phishing. It certainly seems to confuse less savvy(lax?) users, at least.
Wait... did I just download a 12MiB GIF of someone struggl.ing to feed themselves, someone pok.ing a lightbulb and someone dodg.ing an arrow?
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#206Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's still available, I checked. It just happen to cost 12.5k USD.
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
The real price is >$1M, try to do the checkout.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
> 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…
This is pretty common, as far as I understand. Many registries will run their own registrar, but I don’t believe they can give any special anything for their registrars compared to other registrars.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#208I’m quite appalled. Pre-order now! Wonderful new TLD! Buy! But, it will cost an extra $1m if you want to do it now. Later than that, pay less but wait longer, and risk losing it. So, pay up or get lost. Can’t afford $1m for a domain? Sorry, bozo, maybe you can have the scraps when the bullies are done eating. This whole business is massive trash. The days of owning your own domain with any kind of nice name are fadin…
I see eat.ing, own.ing, fad.ing and be.ing, th.ing, dy.ing, anyth.ing
Plop!
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#209Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, they do, huge mistake ...but a lot of fun!
Explain why it’s a huge mistake, please.
I think the idea is ambiguity between a zip file from your coworkers website and an entirely separate phishing website which downloads an entirely different zip file with a malicious payload.
Anything that introduces unnecessary and previously unforseen ambiguity to the olds is just another path to filling the internet with scams
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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...
Don't they sell .zip TLDs now too?
I hate that mentioning example.zip now turns into a link in modern chat programs. At least link preview can be disabled... Also .py is annoying but that one I can understand more why it reasonably needs to exist.