A few months ago, I wrote a post proposing to remove top level domains from the internet, as many people don't understand why we need TLDs. At the time I didn't know either.
Removing TLDs would simplify browsing an possibly increase security by reducing phishing sites that make use of URL similarity to gain visits to potentially dangerous websites, or sites filled with ads.
The ICANN, the body that manages Internet names, has for years been preparing something different but that produces a slightly similar effect than removing TLDs: allowing brands to register their own TLDs. The proposal may soon be approved has been approved.
Brands would therefore be able to register their own TLDs. Google could register .google a potentially powerful TLD for their services, like Google Maps: maps.google instead of maps.google.com.
Brand TLD don't improve short urls like google.com, but seem to be effective for use in subdomains.
Registering a .<brand-name> TLD will cost $185K, which is a sum only available to large corporations.
While the offer has its strengths, its high price won't allow many corporations to register their own TLD. The effect of brand TLD will be small, and may actually cause more confusion than order. A user might wonder why maps.google does not end with .com, but facebook requires .com. As new domain names (with .<brand> TLD) will probably be used mostly to redirect to a .com domain, (for example) both maps.google.com and maps.google would work, mitigating user confusion.
I don't think that .<brand> TLDs will be of much use. They only increase the complexity of the Internet.
Removing TLDs would simplify browsing an possibly increase security by reducing phishing sites that make use of URL similarity to gain visits to potentially dangerous websites, or sites filled with ads.
The ICANN, the body that manages Internet names, has for years been preparing something different but that produces a slightly similar effect than removing TLDs: allowing brands to register their own TLDs. The proposal may soon be approved has been approved.
Brands would therefore be able to register their own TLDs. Google could register .google a potentially powerful TLD for their services, like Google Maps: maps.google instead of maps.google.com.
Brand TLD don't improve short urls like google.com, but seem to be effective for use in subdomains.
Registering a .<brand-name> TLD will cost $185K, which is a sum only available to large corporations.
While the offer has its strengths, its high price won't allow many corporations to register their own TLD. The effect of brand TLD will be small, and may actually cause more confusion than order. A user might wonder why maps.google does not end with .com, but facebook requires .com. As new domain names (with .<brand> TLD) will probably be used mostly to redirect to a .com domain, (for example) both maps.google.com and maps.google would work, mitigating user confusion.
I don't think that .<brand> TLDs will be of much use. They only increase the complexity of the Internet.
After reading your article, it is clear that the introduction of branded top-level domains (TLDs) can further complicate an already complex Internet landscape. While the idea of more specific and memorable domain names may seem appealing, it is important to consider the potential drawbacks, such as increased confusion and the possibility of trademark infringement. I've seen a company NewCasinoSI find a better solution, you can check it out at this link.
ReplyDelete