Re:elgooG
by ta82828 on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @09:02AM
(#9303178)
I think of it this way: they didn't create a new infinite set of TLDs, they just created a single new TLD which is the empty string. So what was the point? Is having ".com" or similar at the end such a huge burden?
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:elgooG
by tokenizerrr on Wednesday April 01, 2015 @09:33AM
(#9303362)
Sure, now where can I, as a consumer with a reasonable budget, register a domain under this new TLD?
There already are TLDs which have stricter requirements (residency requirements, .edu, .mil etc.) as well as TLDs that were significantly more expansive than others. gTLDs are not that unique in that regard, except for being even more expensive.
.work is cheaper, except for some "premium" words.
I bought shall.work for 2 usd, although I admit I only bought it to use the mail it©shall,work for testing purposes.
I was only trying to make an analogy for the effect on the namespace.
I'm sorry what? Have they actually done this? The TLD in this case is "google", right, not an empty string?
I didn't mean it literally, I guess I should have been more clear. What I mean is that gTLDs are a single new namespace, and provide nothing more than what any other single new TLD would have, except for the aesthetic value of not having ".com" at the end of your domain. I suppose now that I think about it this isn't all that profound.