3 ms·

Sure. But you asked how it was different. Amazon has a domain name under a commercial TLD, .com. It doesn't have it's brand as a TLD, nor should anyone. Amazon

Sure. But you asked how it was different. Amazon has a domain name under a commercial TLD, .com. It doesn't have it's brand as a TLD, nor should anyone. Amazon does have a very good claim to make that in the commercial space, people associate the word "amazon" with the company. It might not always be that way, but right now that is a very reasonable claim. If you think someone else should have amazon the domain, no one should have amazon, or whatever else, that's a nifty conversation to have. But it's not what is being discussed.

icebraining 8y ago
They're both domains, I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels. The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world. If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period?
- tomjakubowski 8y ago
  > If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period? The second question is a lot wider in scope and harder to answer, for one. It's usually beneficial to narrow scope to make problems easier to solve.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    Then why stop at one? Let's have three or four. They can get "amazon.retail.com.us", while the river can get "amazon.river.geo.america", etc.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    Easy test that might give us a hint, compare the google search results between '"amazon.com" -site:amazon.com' '"the amazon" OR "amazon rainforest" OR "amazon river"' At least on google, amazon.com returns vastly more stuff. Hell, even '"Amazon" AND "Bezos"' gets way more hits than '"amazon rainforest" OR "amazon river"' Obviously this is far from conclusive, but it's something. Google trends might also be an useful tool. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22the%20amazon%22,%22amazon.com%22,amazon%20bezos,amazon%20river,amazon%20rainforest https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22the%20amazon%2... Seems like people search for "the amazon" about as often as they search for amazon and bezos together, worldwide.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      > google search results between It's so amazing how predictable some of the response on HN are. Google is a search engine built for the web, and even more so today built for U.S. consumers. Not what's real, or true, or appreciable. And certainly not reality. The fact that you thought this would be a convincing argument is extremely laughable and again, palpably ridiculous.
      - ryanlol 8y ago
        My comment you’re replying to already acknowledges that this isn’t a convincing argument by itself. Whats up with the unnecessary hostility?
        kadendogthing 8y ago
        >Whats up with the unnecessary hostility? What are you talking about? >My comment you’re replying to already acknowledges that this isn’t a convincing argument by itself. then why make it?
        ryanlol 8y ago
        >What are you talking about? "The fact that you thought this would be a convincing argument is extremely laughable and again, palpably ridiculous." Which actually probably better applies to your statement about Google specifically being built for US consumers, which is obviously nonsense. Google works great in Finnish which is a terribly complicated and small language, doesn't seem like an US consumer only product to me. And anyway, if we're going to focus on the English language word for the Amazon river, then we'd be better off focusing on the English-speaking market. A quick look at wikipedia shows that very few languages besides English use "Amazon". >then why make it? As I said, because it's something.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels. Well, you didn't ask that. But objectively that's what happens in taxonomies. Taxonomies are inherently, principally based on human experience and understanding. In your case what you're asking to do is just use the word "square" to refer to the set of all different shapes just because square might be the most used word when attempting to describe a shape. And that doesn't make sense. At least I hope you can agree with that. >The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world. Commercial is a TLD because it's broad. TLD's, by their nature, are designed to be at the very top of the domain taxonomy. Hence the name "Top Level Domain." It's at the top. So when you say Amazon, a private company that won't be around forever, should get the amazon TLD you are creating a very weird situation where Amazon the company has cemented itself not as a company but just a thing that can be used to encapsulate other "things." Even despite the fact that Amazon the company named itself after the Amazon River which was named that way because of the amazon warriors. That's a lot of amazon. Maybe, just maybe, amazon the private company shouldn't get to own that category? Since principally there is nothing to further classify the amazon TLD as belonging to amazon the company, and not say the amazon river. That's what .com is for. Trademark law in general already deals with the fact that words can become generic. And when that happens that trademark ceases to be effective. This should be a sign that any kind of brand TLD is completely nonsensical, because private company brands do not belong in TLDs, because TLDs are meant to house other names/concepts that have more concrete usages. Not specific companies that use their name from other concepts or higher level concepts. TLDs are for things, categories, high level groups. Not for trademarks.
  - icebraining 8y ago
    I already got your argument on why Amazon shouldn't get the "amazon." domain, what I still don't get is how those arguments don't also apply to "amazon.com." > So when you say Amazon, a private company that won't be around forever, should get the amazon TLD you are creating a very weird situation where Amazon the company has cemented itself not as a company but just a thing that can be used to encapsulate other "things." Right. And when one says Amazon should get the amazon.com SLD, we are creating a very weird situation where "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" has cemented itself as the only entity who can encapsulate all commercial activity in the world under the term "Amazon". > Even despite the fact that Amazon the company named itself after the Amazon River which was named that way because of the amazon warriors. Exactly. And the river has had plenty of commercial activity long before "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" came around. Why is it OK for that to be subsumed by "amazon.com." anymore than the rest can be subsumed by "amazon." ? > Maybe, just maybe, amazon the private company shouldn't get to own that category? Since principally there is nothing to further classify the amazon TLD as belonging to amazon the company, and not say the amazon river. That's what .com is for. But there's no "amazon the company". There are many, many companies called Amazon, or using the Amazon brand. If it's ok for a single specific instance of "amazon companies" to get "amazon.com", why is it not ok for a single specific instance of "amazon" to get "amazon." ? > TLDs are for things, categories, high level groups. Not for trademarks. Why should only TLDs be for that? Why shouldn't second-level (or even third!) domains be for that too? "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" could get "amazon.retail.com.us", for example. That would be more in line with how trademarks actually work.

icebraining 8y ago

They're both domains, I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels. The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world. If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period?

tomjakubowski 8y ago
> If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period? The second question is a lot wider in scope and harder to answer, for one. It's usually beneficial to narrow scope to make problems easier to solve.
- icebraining 8y ago
  Then why stop at one? Let's have three or four. They can get "amazon.retail.com.us", while the river can get "amazon.river.geo.america", etc.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  Easy test that might give us a hint, compare the google search results between '"amazon.com" -site:amazon.com' '"the amazon" OR "amazon rainforest" OR "amazon river"' At least on google, amazon.com returns vastly more stuff. Hell, even '"Amazon" AND "Bezos"' gets way more hits than '"amazon rainforest" OR "amazon river"' Obviously this is far from conclusive, but it's something. Google trends might also be an useful tool. https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22the%20amazon%22,%22amazon.com%22,amazon%20bezos,amazon%20river,amazon%20rainforest https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?q=%22the%20amazon%2... Seems like people search for "the amazon" about as often as they search for amazon and bezos together, worldwide.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    > google search results between It's so amazing how predictable some of the response on HN are. Google is a search engine built for the web, and even more so today built for U.S. consumers. Not what's real, or true, or appreciable. And certainly not reality. The fact that you thought this would be a convincing argument is extremely laughable and again, palpably ridiculous.
    - ryanlol 8y ago
      My comment you’re replying to already acknowledges that this isn’t a convincing argument by itself. Whats up with the unnecessary hostility?
      - kadendogthing 8y ago
        >Whats up with the unnecessary hostility? What are you talking about? >My comment you’re replying to already acknowledges that this isn’t a convincing argument by itself. then why make it?
        ryanlol 8y ago
        >What are you talking about? "The fact that you thought this would be a convincing argument is extremely laughable and again, palpably ridiculous." Which actually probably better applies to your statement about Google specifically being built for US consumers, which is obviously nonsense. Google works great in Finnish which is a terribly complicated and small language, doesn't seem like an US consumer only product to me. And anyway, if we're going to focus on the English language word for the Amazon river, then we'd be better off focusing on the English-speaking market. A quick look at wikipedia shows that very few languages besides English use "Amazon". >then why make it? As I said, because it's something.
kadendogthing 8y ago
>I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels. Well, you didn't ask that. But objectively that's what happens in taxonomies. Taxonomies are inherently, principally based on human experience and understanding. In your case what you're asking to do is just use the word "square" to refer to the set of all different shapes just because square might be the most used word when attempting to describe a shape. And that doesn't make sense. At least I hope you can agree with that. >The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world. Commercial is a TLD because it's broad. TLD's, by their nature, are designed to be at the very top of the domain taxonomy. Hence the name "Top Level Domain." It's at the top. So when you say Amazon, a private company that won't be around forever, should get the amazon TLD you are creating a very weird situation where Amazon the company has cemented itself not as a company but just a thing that can be used to encapsulate other "things." Even despite the fact that Amazon the company named itself after the Amazon River which was named that way because of the amazon warriors. That's a lot of amazon. Maybe, just maybe, amazon the private company shouldn't get to own that category? Since principally there is nothing to further classify the amazon TLD as belonging to amazon the company, and not say the amazon river. That's what .com is for. Trademark law in general already deals with the fact that words can become generic. And when that happens that trademark ceases to be effective. This should be a sign that any kind of brand TLD is completely nonsensical, because private company brands do not belong in TLDs, because TLDs are meant to house other names/concepts that have more concrete usages. Not specific companies that use their name from other concepts or higher level concepts. TLDs are for things, categories, high level groups. Not for trademarks.
- icebraining 8y ago
  I already got your argument on why Amazon shouldn't get the "amazon." domain, what I still don't get is how those arguments don't also apply to "amazon.com." > So when you say Amazon, a private company that won't be around forever, should get the amazon TLD you are creating a very weird situation where Amazon the company has cemented itself not as a company but just a thing that can be used to encapsulate other "things." Right. And when one says Amazon should get the amazon.com SLD, we are creating a very weird situation where "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" has cemented itself as the only entity who can encapsulate all commercial activity in the world under the term "Amazon". > Even despite the fact that Amazon the company named itself after the Amazon River which was named that way because of the amazon warriors. Exactly. And the river has had plenty of commercial activity long before "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" came around. Why is it OK for that to be subsumed by "amazon.com." anymore than the rest can be subsumed by "amazon." ? > Maybe, just maybe, amazon the private company shouldn't get to own that category? Since principally there is nothing to further classify the amazon TLD as belonging to amazon the company, and not say the amazon river. That's what .com is for. But there's no "amazon the company". There are many, many companies called Amazon, or using the Amazon brand. If it's ok for a single specific instance of "amazon companies" to get "amazon.com", why is it not ok for a single specific instance of "amazon" to get "amazon." ? > TLDs are for things, categories, high level groups. Not for trademarks. Why should only TLDs be for that? Why shouldn't second-level (or even third!) domains be for that too? "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" could get "amazon.retail.com.us", for example. That would be more in line with how trademarks actually work.