How can a commercial company own a top level domain like ".app"? I get that they own .youtube or .google but isn't that way too generic? Like a company owning the copyright for the word "Company"?
These companies don't really "own" the names. They're paying $180k/yr for the privilege of ICANN delegating the responsibility of managing that gTLD to them. But this privilege isn't any kind of legal right; the company doesn't have a deed to or easement on that gTLD that would hold up in court. ICANN has just agreed, as their side of the contract, to 1. accept that company's zone-registration modifications vis-a-vis that gTLD; and 2. to not accept any other third-party entity's zone-registration modifications vis-a-vis the gTLD. But if ICANN don't like what's going on, they always have the right to just cancel the relationship (probably with a pro-rated refund for the rest of the contract period, but still) and then do what they like with the gTLD from there.
The thing I'd compare it most closely to, is an exclusive licensing of IP rights from a copyright-holder to another entity, where those rights include a sub-licensing right. While that contract pertains, the entity who licensed the rights can basically act as if they owned those rights; but the actual legal right-holder can always just revoke the licensing agreement — in the process, either "absorbing" the transitive license grants to themselves, anuling those transitive licenses, or finding a new contract-holder and transferring the "stewardship" of those transitive licenses to them.
You're incorrect on the fees. The 180k was the application fee for the 2013 round of new gtlds. Actual on going costs are $6,250 per quarter, plus a cut from each registration or renewal, as per the registry contract.
Our company tried to register a TLD with ICANN. ICANN's process was so complicated, when we asked questions, they suggested we hire a law firm to help us. Turns out the partner at the firm was a former ICANN employee so they referred us to their former colleague.
This law firm wanted $250k up front for the application, told us it could take over 2 years, and did not offer any guarantees that the TLD we wanted would be approved. It's a total scam up and down.
I'm no expert on Handshake, but it has a built in open auction system for registering TLDs. It seems to be the best alternative to the ICANN cabal and an actually decent use case for a blockchain. We bought the TLD we wanted on Handshake, and it cost less than $1,000. If we could only get browsers to support it...
If browsers supported Handshake just like they do DNS, you can bet you wouldn't have just paid 1000 bucks for a TLD. You'd probably have paid more than what it costs for a TLD under ICANN.
Whether Google owns it legally is irrelevant to the concerns people have regarding the control Google will have. ICANN won't revoke the license agreement if Google is "naughty" and decides to deregister some GoogleSucks.app or ControversialOpinion.app domains. This is Google, and not worth the effort for ICANN to even bother unless the above domains cause enough noise to rock the boat, which they won't. It'll probably be some conservative ("right wing propaganda") or misinformation or plausibly illegal type of domain that everyone will choose to ignore and dismiss for various reasons. End result of this is definitely more censorship.
Because gTLDs were sold to the highest bidder; there’s no requirement for them to be sold for the good of humanity. For-profit companies like Verisign own .com and donuts owns a few hundred https://donuts.domains/what-we-do/top-level-domain-portfolio...
It may seem like a pedantic point, but these top-level domains are not owned. They currently have registry operation rights which does not confer permanent ownership.
The thing I'd compare it most closely to, is an exclusive licensing of IP rights from a copyright-holder to another entity, where those rights include a sub-licensing right. While that contract pertains, the entity who licensed the rights can basically act as if they owned those rights; but the actual legal right-holder can always just revoke the licensing agreement — in the process, either "absorbing" the transitive license grants to themselves, anuling those transitive licenses, or finding a new contract-holder and transferring the "stewardship" of those transitive licenses to them.