3 ms·

>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

>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.
- kadendogthing 8y ago
  >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". Well that's how the domain structure is currently laid out. Someone has to get it. If you're just going to argue that the domain system needs more finesse, just say that. But asking these round about questions is pointless. At some point "amazon" the company gets a domain. right now that's the SLD, as it is for everyone else. ICANN has an appeal system if you think you deserve it more for whatever reason. >Why is it OK for that to be subsumed by "amazon.com." Because amazon purchased the domain. The domain points to a specific server. It's not a TLD that acts a registry for other domains. There is a very important difference there. One you don't seem to appreciate. >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." ? I'm going to stop right here, because you're just arguing that the current domain system is broken. And that's not what we're discussing. I'm not sure what the motivation is for doing that is, but it doesn't belong here. >Why should only TLDs be for that? Because that's how categories and taxonomies work. I gave you an example with shapes. Hopefully you understand shapes.
  - ryanlol 8y ago
    >Because amazon purchased the domain. The domain points to a specific server. It's not a TLD that acts a registry for other domains. There is a very important difference there. One you don't seem to appreciate. There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name. Any practical difference is extremely questionable too.
    - kadendogthing 8y ago
      >There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name. Yes there is. You just need to stop talking about this subject because you are very much wrong. TLDs have authoritative organizations that adhere to ICANN regulations and act as a gatekeeper to a varied and diverse set of domains under that TLD. Certain TLDs have specific purposes. Some are country codes, others are specific scopes, some others are built in from decades past.

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.

kadendogthing 8y ago
>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". Well that's how the domain structure is currently laid out. Someone has to get it. If you're just going to argue that the domain system needs more finesse, just say that. But asking these round about questions is pointless. At some point "amazon" the company gets a domain. right now that's the SLD, as it is for everyone else. ICANN has an appeal system if you think you deserve it more for whatever reason. >Why is it OK for that to be subsumed by "amazon.com." Because amazon purchased the domain. The domain points to a specific server. It's not a TLD that acts a registry for other domains. There is a very important difference there. One you don't seem to appreciate. >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." ? I'm going to stop right here, because you're just arguing that the current domain system is broken. And that's not what we're discussing. I'm not sure what the motivation is for doing that is, but it doesn't belong here. >Why should only TLDs be for that? Because that's how categories and taxonomies work. I gave you an example with shapes. Hopefully you understand shapes.
- ryanlol 8y ago
  >Because amazon purchased the domain. The domain points to a specific server. It's not a TLD that acts a registry for other domains. There is a very important difference there. One you don't seem to appreciate. There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name. Any practical difference is extremely questionable too.
  - kadendogthing 8y ago
    >There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name. Yes there is. You just need to stop talking about this subject because you are very much wrong. TLDs have authoritative organizations that adhere to ICANN regulations and act as a gatekeeper to a varied and diverse set of domains under that TLD. Certain TLDs have specific purposes. Some are country codes, others are specific scopes, some others are built in from decades past.