The fact that private entities can monopolize gTLDs, including words that aren't even made-up or reasonably copy-written (e.g. the MAN group in Europe owns .man) was an embarrassing and dishonorable decision by ICANN. I'm all for having tons of weird, awesome gTLDs, and I'm even for brand-specific gTLDs like .google, but the cost these entities should incur by asking for one to be created is: Anyone can use it.

1. A set number of slots should be opened every 10 years (e.g. 250 new gTLDs every ten years).

2. Entities submit bids for the gTLD slots, in terms of dollars. The 250 highest bids win.

3. If your entity wins a slot, you submit the gTLD you want, and there's a public comment period where claims against the gTLD being created are heard (e.g. if you own the copyright in some jurisdiction and someone else is trying to register it, submit a claim).

4. If it passes, your entity is allowed to register a set number of TLDs on the gTLD (e.g. 100) before anyone else gets access. This is what you bought: The fact that the gTLD exists, and the first 100 domain names on it without competition).

5. It then becomes a real gTLD.

Some variant of this is how it always should have worked, and entities like Google should be forced into a sophie's choice: They could fight .google indefinitely, win, and it'll never become a gTLD, or they could sponsor it, claim the first N domain names, but otherwise make it available to everyone. Of course, they might actually have valid jurisdictional claims against anyone else who tries to register a .google domain on copyright grounds, so maybe they fight and win in the courts against anyone who tries to use it; but the point is that it shouldn't be ICANN's decision.

Nah. Don’t make it complicated. Open the root zone to everyone, we don’t need suffixes anymore other than for leeches to make money. Distribute the responsibility for the root zone, kill off the pest that is the TLD industry once and for all. Domain owners can pay a uniform flat fee to IANA shared among all participating entities that keep the infrastructure up. Everyone can have their own, freely choosable TLD. Trademark holders have a right to claim, with some dispute process similar to what we have now.

It would be glorious.

This requiring it to be open to everybody is an odd wish, to me. It would seem to discourage something that I don't think is a harm to anyone else: Getting your brand as a TLD (.google being a great example). Google has a trademark on "Google," so no one else can make non-mischeivous use of .google anyway. If they had to let random internet critics and trolls register theworst.google and ihate.google they just wouldn't make one, but that wouldn't make anyone else any better off, especially in the real world we live in where most people still do a double take at TLDs that aren't com, org, edu, or gov (or their nearest country code).

Maybe if we'd always had .yahoo and .aol from the beginning these brand TLDs would be a big signifier of legitimacy and thus we'd be worried about how only big corporations can afford them, but not being able to afford one in our current universe is no handicap in my humble opinion.

> The fact that private entities can monopolize gTLDs, including words that aren't even made-up or reasonably copy-written

I'm reminded when the people of the Amazon rainforest petitioned to own .amazon, but it was given to the US company.

What should happen with the proceeds of the sales?

Is the highest bidder really the best custodian of a tld?

Why have a quota of, as you say, 250 every 10 years? What does this do to help, what issues does it address?

The cost for a gTLD used to be $1-2 million USD. I wonder if it is still the same pay-to-play racket for rich people and corporations.

how can someone copyright a TLD?