Do you like rings ? Do you like wings ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpLNA1Dk68M&ab_channel=Peter...
The .ing top-level domain
271–280 of 333 posts
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#272Meanwhile Namecheap just launched .bot tld today, that I think is frankly, quite cool.
https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results/?doma...
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#273Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes: https://newgtlds.icann.org/en/applicants/auctions
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.
.onion
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#274Earlier quoted context omitted.
Does it even matter anymore? Domains have been replaced with apps and search anyway. Outside of maybe the top 100 domains, how many people are actually typing out a domain?
I wonder if there’s a better alternative to current domain formats? Like, wouldnt it be great if you could just use your organization name without an extension? Like just google or apple or whatever. Instead of google.com or apple.com You can’t register tlds with those names anyway (a random person can’t register google.xyz) so why bother with extensions? Maybe not get rid of the altogether but as an alternative?
I think people get more value out of the unified search/url bar "just working" without having to think how to use it than they'd get out of not having to type ".com". If they want that kind of workflow they kind of already have it in the form "apple" enter -> first result.
It would also mean every single word entry would have to hit the root level of this public name lookup system since the client wouldn't know until after it checked.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#275Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Is that enough to create the TLD itself, let say .banging?
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#276Earlier 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...
If I were the lawyers at ING, I would be sending Google it cease-and-desist with regards to selling any domains with banking related terms. I actually think they would have a reasonably strong claim.
https://bank.ing is ING Bank.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#277I’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…
How exciting! grift.ing is available.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#278Meanwhile Namecheap just launched .bot tld today, that I think is frankly, quite cool. https://www.namecheap.com/domains/registration/results/?doma...
Does Namecheap keep a list of new TLDs they are releasing? This page doesn't seem to be updated: https://www.namecheap.com/domains/explore-new-tlds/
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#279Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
I wonder if we're at the point that the costs of registering a new TLD are immediately recouped from the set of large businesses that must register their name in every TLD?
I was thinking about this too.
Some TLDs look like an obvious obligatory money grab (such as .download), so companies are compelled to buy it.
I have seen some TLDs owned by a company and didn't even bother to set a redirect.
My anecdote is that the ICANN annual fee ($25k) is easily covered by these obligatory registrations and the premium domains. The cost of running nameservers aren't that high. NS1 has an offering, but it's impossible to find their pricing for anything.
Re: The .ing top-level domain
#280Launched today but all those companies already have registered the domains? So the public didn't get fair access to draw.ing??
I'd imagine Google reached out to Canva, ING bank, Adobe, etc and offered those domains for free, so it looks "adopted" by the industry leaders.