That still seems pretty reasonable. They want ".new" to be seen and used as an interaction element, not as a random TLD. E.g. if twitter would get one, twitter.new would bring you somewhere where you could directly start typing a new tweet.
Well, good luck when your app gets flag by their bot, broken because the .new no longer works, and you can't get a hold of Google to remove you from their blacklist.
Just read all the horror stories about apps on Google Play.
tesla.new where you can order directly online, yeh probably. That's I reckon exactly the kind of distinction I think they're going for. ford.new would make me go to a dealer so I think they should be able to never get one.
As a user I don't think I'd ever go to .new directly. If you've got some other way to get users there from the main site, you might as well use a query string, path, subdomain or some combination of the three.
I'm not a web dev, but I've dabbled a bit over the years. So I guess I could be missing something. I'm sure the right marketing could make this work.
Sure, but I never saw anything as ambiguous as:
* Be used for action generation or online content creation;
* Take the user directly into the action generation or content creation flow;
* Allow Google Registry to verify compliance at no cost.
That some AI script with a failure quote of ~2% will verify your compliance wont help also.
And the only way to get some human support in those cases is when you manage to get on page 1 of HN with your "crying for help" tweet.