[degenerate]

Looking at you, yes you... .international

To me, the asinine part of these gTLDs is that companies can register their gTLD with sponsorship ($185K from when I last checked) yet they don't need to sell domains to the public. I understand the idea of exclusivity, but this simply shifts the profiteering racket from one set of players (domain squatters) to another (ICANN and big business).

I'm not happy with how they are doing it. I'd rather a business model be required to sell domains at $X/yr to the public (some reasonable rate), along with a yearly sponsorship instead of one-time. That would put the focus on maintaining a business capable of supporting the cost of the gTLD instead of a digital billboard and bragging rights. Maybe if that was in place, we wouldn't have stupid ones like .northwesternmutual

[tobyjsullivan]

My info may be outdated but what I originally understood was an application for sponsorship had to include details on plans for the gTLD which were subject to approval.

The idea was name brands like .microsoft could be kept private for trademark-protection but other gTLDs like .professional would go to applicants that intended to resell.

Not sure how this ended up in practice though.

[robalfonso]

I do see a business case for not selling. .canon for example - you could provide every device with its own domain ie xhshe3u45.canon etc. So there are some cases where it does make sense.

[koolba]

You can do that already with uuid.cam.canon.com. At best you save a few characters.

[dsl]

Never co-host real applications and user controlled sites on the same root domain. You're just asking for a neverending stream of problems. (This is why everything ends up on googleusercontent.com and friends instead of google.com)

[granda]

Can you go into more detail why? I'm curious.

[koolba]

It can lead to security issues with cookie sharing and domain validation.

My example would have been better as <uuid>.canoncam.com