ICANN's list of abandoned vanity TLDs

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Corporate vanity gTLD gold rush & ROI

  • Many see the 2010s gTLD wave as an “enterprise gold rush”: big brands wanted .brand domains after seeing examples like .google or .mcdonalds.
  • Over time, companies realized the ROI was poor and let many gTLDs lapse, leaving “ghost town” namespaces.
  • Some argue it was defensive: better to own your .brand so no one else can, even if you rarely use it.

Costs, budgeting, and opportunity cost

  • Application fee cited as ~$185k plus ~$15k/quarter ongoing, viewed as trivial for large enterprises but significant for smaller firms.
  • Debate over whether such spending is justified versus better uses of marketing/security budgets.
  • Side discussion uses car makers’ per-vehicle profit to show how easily large firms can absorb these fees.

Perceived value and real-world usage

  • Many commenters rarely see these TLDs in the wild; when they do, it’s often SEO spam.
  • Some feel gTLDs look like typos or scams and are especially bad for email; several report real services rejecting newer TLDs as invalid.
  • A minority argues being a registry (not just a registrant) gives stronger, long-term control over critical domains and IP.

Technical and security considerations

  • Thread covers DNS hierarchy, search domains, and why unlimited/flat TLDs might stress infrastructure and break assumptions.
  • Security concerns around confusing TLDs like .zip and potential abuse of hostnames that look like filenames or local hosts.
  • Dotless domains (e.g., using only the TLD) are largely forbidden by ICANN; browsers/search behavior further limits them.
  • Libraries must constantly update from IANA and the Public Suffix List; some teams automate this due to frequent changes.

ICANN policies and governance criticism

  • ICANN is criticized as turning new gTLDs into a “money grab” and doing little about TLD- and domain-squatting.
  • Amazon and others are said to be “holding TLDs hostage” with little incentive to release them.
  • ICANN’s process is described as bureaucratic and slow, with mailing lists full of procedural bickering.
  • Linked ICANN PDFs reportedly use weak “black box” redactions that are trivially removable.

Specific examples and anecdotes

  • Instances of both abandoned (.sncf, .wed issues) and active (.fage) branded TLDs.
  • Internationalized TLDs via Punycode (Chinese, Arabic) are discussed.
  • Nerdy side notes include extremely short email addresses at ccTLDs and internal “go”-style hostnames using search domains.