Nothing, technically speaking. But legally and economically speaking I think it's a bad idea.
I personally think there should only be a very small handful of TLDs: com, edu, org, gov and maybe a few others. Having a limited number of TLDs communicates to the end user what kind of site it is (government, educational, commercial, non-profit, etc.) and reduces your domain footprint online.
When you allow ".sucks" to be a TLD, now you've basically opened up a new market of squatters and blackmailers forcing companies and individuals to buy up every possible potentially damaging TLD of their trademark or brand[0].
If you allow any arbitrary TLD, be prepared to employ a full DNS police force because tons of people acting in bad faith are going to register every possible typo under the sun in order to capitalize on people's mistakes ("apple.con", "apple.cpm", "apple.vom", "f---.apple")
I agree with this only so much as to protect the user with information on what type of site they are visiting. Org for non-profit or clubs, Net for networks, Com for commerce, nation tld’s and gov. The arbitrary TLD’s are really to keep certain organizations from owning the internet because of how name registration works. Humans are corrupt.
.org could still be for non-profits and national TLD's could still be managed by governments. .com, .net, meanings btw, are completely irrelevant nowadays.
My idea is not to cancel the meaning of .org, but rather create other possibilities for names.
What's the difference really between a 1000+ TLDs and a 100,000+ TLDs?
I understand your arguement, but it seems to me a separate problem independent of what I proposed.
As an evidence, the problem your describe already exists under the current amount a 1000+ TLDs. It won't be a new problem arising from my proposal.
Since it's a separate problem, there should be a separate discussion on how to solve it.
- Should we "cancel" TLDs altogether and just allow entities to register arbitrary sentences as names (why not?)?
- Should Internet companies be called apple.com instead of apple? (the problem is less harmful for non-internet business, right?).
- Should we remove only similarly-sound TLDs (com vs cons)?
- Should we tolerate that apple.com belongs to Apple while apple.con belong to different legal entities, in the same name that two companies in different countries can have the same name?
I could go on and on with possible solutions, though my point was only to demonstrate it's a separate problem.
I think we should only allow country (including the EU as a smi-country) code domains plus .int for international organizations and .net for things that don't belong to any country (example: IETF).
I am unsure whether 2 or 3 letter country codes are better.
Also, I think that there should be semi-standardized second level domains. Example (cc means any country code): .com.cc (commercial) .edu.cc (anything related to education) .uni.cc (only universities and higher education) .org.cc (non commercial entities) .gov.cc (executive) .jus.cc (judiciary) .lex.cc (legislative) .mil.cc (military) .b.cc (for banks and other financiao institutions) .name.cc (for personal websites)
I personally think there should only be a very small handful of TLDs: com, edu, org, gov and maybe a few others. Having a limited number of TLDs communicates to the end user what kind of site it is (government, educational, commercial, non-profit, etc.) and reduces your domain footprint online.
When you allow ".sucks" to be a TLD, now you've basically opened up a new market of squatters and blackmailers forcing companies and individuals to buy up every possible potentially damaging TLD of their trademark or brand[0].
If you allow any arbitrary TLD, be prepared to employ a full DNS police force because tons of people acting in bad faith are going to register every possible typo under the sun in order to capitalize on people's mistakes ("apple.con", "apple.cpm", "apple.vom", "f---.apple")
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sucks_(registry)