logoalt Hacker News

New gTLD Application for .lan

58 points • by mzajc • today at 3:51 PM • 61 comments • view on HN

Comments

alwa • today at 4:10 PM

This seems like a good time to educate myself about the application (and objection) process.

The bureaucracy seems precision-engineered to stultify, but apparently the public have 104 days after “String Confirmation Day” (17th Nov; capitalization theirs) to lodge objections, assuming the “GAC” doesn’t beat them to it…

https://newgtldprogram.icann.org/en/application-rounds/round...

…of course there’s a “filing fee,” priced in “hours of a panel of lawyers’ time,” to lodge such an objection…

https://newgtldprogram-2026-agb.icann.org/en/8-module-4-comm...

…welp, hope somebody more organized (and better-funded) than I can organize an objection. Much as I feel like I’m giving up my right to gripe by assuming somebody else will come along to do the weeding.

mzajc • today at 3:51 PM

Posting because OpenWRT, possibly others as well, assign .lan names to devices on the LAN by default. People who make use of this might want to follow the application, and, if it goes through, either change the name or make sure queries can't get incorrectly get sent to upstream resolvers.

Regarding that last point, I've had issues with dnsmasq in the past where it was remotely resolving domains even when they were configured to resolve locally. For .lan domains, this could be disastrous because I often send plaintext traffic to them. I did submit a fix/workaround[0], but it's still something to look out for. If anyone knows more about this issue or other ways queries could leak, please share!

[0]: https://github.com/openwrt/openwrt/pull/18610

➕ show 2 replies
Faelian2 • today at 4:15 PM

It's a shame that ICANN did get so greedy and put everyone at risk.

Having internal domain names owned by some guy on the internet has already compromised multiple corporate networks. See the talk from this guy:

https://www.romhack.io/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Internal-D...

➕ show 2 replies
gertrunde • today at 5:00 PM

The way they've filled out the application surprises me.

There are questions that literally say as part of the question "Choose Yes or No", so they've answered "true"...

And Q165 is fun: "Is it likely that consumers will face significant risks if domain names in the TLD(s) in the application are abused?" Answer: "No"

yegle • today at 4:53 PM

> RFC 8375 defines the intranet domain as .home.arpa, but ICANN in 2024 says it should use .internal instead. Is ICANN not choosing .lan or .home because these two domains might still fetch a good price?

My tweet on Sep 26, 2026

vekntksijdhric • today at 4:00 PM

This is a security issue for many devices. What could possibly go wrong overriding a tld used for internal networking....

➕ show 5 replies
ectospheno • today at 4:43 PM

The .lan domain has been on an rpz blocklist along with several other commonly used names in my networks for quite some time. I have no plans for that domain to ever successfully resolve regardless of whether or not it goes live.

sybercecurity • today at 4:09 PM

Full collection of proposed new gTLDs: https://newgtldprogram-aps.icann.org/statistics

Also see a .bldg application, which also might conflict with some legacy naming schemes.

gertrunde • today at 4:42 PM

21 separate applications for some variation on .agent/.agentic

I'm guessing that'll end up being expensive for someone...

0x0 • today at 4:26 PM

I've been using a single letter "fake" tld for my internal LAN DNS zone. Looks like ICANN requires 3+ letters in tld applications, so hopefully should be safe for quite a while.

saghm • today at 4:30 PM

Debian should apply for this so they can take advantage of case insensitivity and sans-serif fonts so to let people go to DEB.lAN to view their website

dijit • today at 4:23 PM

I'm still seething about `.dev`.

For those not in the know, Google lobbied ICANN to get the name and in their application they stated (repeatedly) that the intent was to buy it so that it could be reserved; as .dev was already used by developers and if someone bought it for commercial purposes it would harm the developer community.[0]

.... they then proceeded to start selling them.

Leading to all kinds of issues, the exact issues that they raised...

https://github.com/basecamp/pow/issues/397

https://github.com/laravel/valet/issues/433

https://danielbachhuber.com/switch-laravel-valet-from-dev-to...

https://community.localwp.com/t/dev-domain-doesnt-work/4277

https://forums.theregister.com/forum/all/2017/11/29/google_d...

[0]: https://gtldresult.icann.org/applicationstatus/applicationde...

procone • today at 4:15 PM

gTLDs were a mistake. I say that as an owner of several domains with gTLDs.

There's almost no value.

Large businesses almost never use them. The potential for scams / phish / etc are now limitless.

moecables • today at 4:34 PM

I'm out of the loop on this, can someone explain who this is and why this is bad?

bombcar • today at 4:25 PM

Can I get a group of Ians and register .Ian?

p1mrx • today at 4:14 PM

When ICANN reserved .internal a couple years ago, I was saying they should just flip and truncate it to .lan(retni) so everyone's happy.

deno • today at 4:16 PM

Why would you even want something like “lan” as a global TLD? Does it mean something else than the obvious?

Fortunately there’s no need to speculate as the application explains this clearly:

  AGB Q118: What is the meaning/definition of the applied-for gTLD string?
  Answer: Lan commonly refers to a broadly recognized term used across a wide range of contexts.
ChrisArchitect • today at 4:29 PM

Related:

ICANN Reveals 2026 Round Applications for New Generic Top-Level Domains

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49997301

montjoy • today at 4:28 PM

No.

unleaded • today at 4:13 PM

..Why? Just to annoy people?

➕ show 2 replies
Group_B • today at 4:19 PM

so so dumb. Pure greed. This is going to cause so many issues