anyone else think it's obvious?
"Simple. if someone wants to bring out a new gTLD, then everyone who currently owns a name in .com, gets it for free, forever in the new gTLD." well duh, of course it's unfair, whilst I appreciate that microsoft.com, also wants microsoft.co.uk and quite rightly too, what about all the other .com registrations that are also just generic words, not brand names or trademarks.
(i.e what about cars.com, money.com). you can't just give away free domain registrations, as these are, (to online entrepreneurs at least, a valuable commodity).
That said, whoever thought .god was a good TLD should be shot, it's obviously not.
If I were to think of a handfull of TLDs that were to be useful then I would field.
whilst I thought .xxx was a nice idea at the outset, it was always doomed to failure,
In context with the original article, the pope is right .god should not be allowed it's far too specific, and will lead to a lot more arguments for ICANN to sort out,
That said, with generic terms like.blog, or .forum, or .shop these are terms that anyone can take. and to be fair, if someone tries to squat on microsoft.shop there is already a process to take care of that as it's microsofts registered trade mark,
if someone tries to register microsoft.shop selling MS software then the process is still valid as they are using microsofts trademark to further their business.
if someone opens apple.shop to sell mp3 players, or music, then apple have a case.
if someone opens apple.shop selling beatles memorablia then a different apple have a case.
if someone opens a fruit shop /online grocery delivery service called apple.com then this isn't infringing on the trademark. and there is no need to fight about it.
if microsoft want to say that they already have to spend too much defending their domain presence then I say, well cry me a fucking river, perhaps they shouldn't chase people like Mike Rowe, the teenage programmer who opened mikerowesoft distributing his free apps.