Show HN: gtlds.fyi – All the proposed new gTLDs

Commenters reacted to a site that catalogs proposed new gTLDs by pointing out usability and policy issues and by arguing over whether the expansion is useful or harmful. Some commenters wanted practical improvements to the site (sorting by number of applicants, more filters and view options, a "hide brands" toggle) and suggested promising short or semantic TLDs for self-hosting (.link, .bit, .lab, .self). Others raised security and consumer-protection concerns: several said many TLDs invite typosquatting and brand confusion (.cmo/.con cited), that domains serve as a weak but important security signal in the address bar, and that extending TLDs benefits wealthy companies or speculators more than the public.

Views split on governance and access. Some commenters noted ICANN rules that forbid “closed generics” so genuinely generic TLDs must be open, while brand TLDs can be tightly controlled and expensive (Google’s .app bid and closed-brand examples were mentioned). Many expressed disgust at auctioning namespace to private interests and at steep prices for desirable strings; others accepted brand control if registries make names available. The site author reportedly added filters in response to feedback, underscoring the tension between openness/usefulness and commercialization/usability.