Top-Level Domain .App Is Now Open For General Registration (googleblog.com)

Christina Chiou Yeh, writing for Google Registry: On May 1 we announced .app, the newest top-level domain (TLD) from Google Registry. It's now open for general registration so you can register your desired .app name right now. We begin our journey with sitata.app, which provides real-time travel information about events like protests or transit strikes. Looks all clear, so our first stop is the Caribbean, where we use thelocal.app and start exploring. After getting some sun, we fly to the Netherlands, where we're feeling hungry. Luckily, picnic.app delivers groceries, right to our hotel. With our bellies full, it's time to head to India, where we use myra.app to order the medicine, hygiene, and baby products that we forgot to pack. Did we mention this was a business trip? Good thing lola.app helped make such a complex trip stress free. Time to head home now, so we slip on a hoodie we bought on ov.app and enjoy the ride.

Comments

But I already have .com for my DOS apps.

[xack]

Why do we need another operating system and domain?

Nope.

[xxxJonBoyxxx]

>> Crappy TLD ".app" is now taking money from suckers.

Nope.

Re:Nope.

[nine-times]

I understand what you're saying, but on the other hand, I could see some possible value from increasing the number of TLDs.

One of the problems with the domain naming system is that there are a lot of squatters. For a long time, there's been a land-grab to gobble up every desirable .COM domain and hold out for a big payday. There are a lot of companies that go to buy a domain that matches the company name, only to find that [company-name].com is taken, and so are most of the variations that they would want. They end up paying hundreds, thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of dollars to get the domain that they want, from someone who isn't using it and doesn't even want it. There are actually cases where domain names went on sale for tens of millions of dollars.

There are various ways to try to solve this problem. One part of the reason the land-grab works is because there's so little land being sold for such small amounts of money that it makes a lot of sense to buy as many potentially useful domains as you can, and sit on them until you find a buyer. One way to try to address that is to increase the cost of a domain, such that sitting on unused domains is less profitable. However, that also creates a big barrier to people who want to start a website without spending a ton of money.

Another approach is to drastically increase the amount of land. If there are nearly infinite combinations of domains, then it becomes much harder (or at least more expensive) to monopolize all of the memorable combinations. As a result, domain squatters have less leverage-- they may have the exact domain that you want, but you should be able to come up with some other acceptable variation.

Re:Nope.

[nine-times]

Another way would be that if you register XYZ.com then any established business called XYZ can boot you out unless you can come up with a good idea why not.

Right, like I said, there are various ways to try to solve the problem. However (and I'm sorry if this is rude), what you're suggesting is not a particularly good solution. It'd be courting controversy, and there'd bound to be a lot of administrative overhead.

Because think about this: What constitutes a "good idea why not"? Someone needs to come up with a set of reasons why it's ok to own a domain, and why not, when someone can have their ownership challenged, and when they can't. And then once the rules are set, there needs to be some kind of court or governing body that decides whether a given situation falls under some particular rule. Then lawyers will get involved. Next thing you know, there's a billion-dollar legal industry set up for the sole purpose of manipulating this governing body, and who has a "good reason" for owning a domain becomes about who has the most money to spend on lawyers.

And even if you can come up with a reasonable and iron-clad reason why the current owner shouldn't have access to XYZ.com, so you revoke their ownership, but now 10 different companies all come forward claiming they they should be granted owership-- how do you decide who has the best claim.

No doubt we could come up with a plan to address some of these things, but I think it's going to be a problem as long as you're relying on a "good reason", which is going to be judgement-based. I could see there being a more technical justification like, "there is no original content on the website" or "the website has not been updated in [X] years." However, I could see either of those being abused/manipulated. What constitutes "original content"? What constitutes and "update"? What if you just use a domain for email, and not for a website?

I think there should be (and actually I believe there is) some mechanism for revoking domain ownership in case of obvious abuse. If you somehow hijack Microsoft's domain and use it to spread malware, I'm pretty sure that'll get shut down and returned to Microsoft. Otherwise, because of the scale of the Internet and the number of controversies that are bound to arise, I think the solution should probably be more technical than legalistic.

Apping app app app appers app

[Anonymous Coward]

Only true appers app with appers.app.app.app. Only LUDDITES USE .COM. Appers.app.

Re:Done

[Oswald McWeany]

With https://f.app/ the internet is now complete.

I wonder if cr.app is taken yet...

Re:Done

[godrik]

I am more interested in beeront.app

This plethora of new TLDs are a godsend!

[aicrules]

I will now have no trouble identifying what a website is for just by looking at its URL!

Now we need .exe

[crow]

It's high time we move all of .com to .exe.