TLD Applications from the Parent Company of .CO Revealed

elliotsblog.com

3 points·tnd··6 comments

Some of these aren't entirely a bad idea, unlike .museum and .aero that were surely peyote inspired.

Does anyone know about the parent company's behavior in a general sense? Can't be worse than Verisign, right?

For .museum, keep in mind the proposal was written in a world before good search engines, where directories still made sense. (Note that the .museum TLD is highly hierarchical, and every non-"leaf" domain is an index of its contents.) In today's search-driven world, it is, of course, entirely unnecessary.

I'd argue that a lot of the more recent TLDs (like .asia, .coop, and .tel) are far more ridiculous.

Didn't Yahoo! and the Mozilla Directory already prove this was a bad idea long before .museum showed up?

Too many expensive experiments in re-inventing history.

You're probably right that these are artifacts of an age when domains still mattered, before Google and their like made your brand name far more important.

Not really.

.museum was introduced in 2001 -- and, presumably, took a while to get to that point. I imagine it was at least a few years in the making.

Yahoo didn't switch to crawler-based search (based on Inktomi, iirc?) until 2002.

Now who in this world would want to have their domain names something like:

amazon.llc or facebook.inc?

.com/.net/.org makes a lot of sense. These gTLDs don't. IMHO.

404?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com