5 ms·
A money grab for whom? ICANN, sure. But if a company wants to spend the $200k, what is the big deal? Some companies (ex http://www.nic.ovh/en/index.xml http://
by ShakataGaNai 6y ago
A money grab for whom? ICANN, sure. But if a company wants to spend the $200k, what is the big deal?
Some companies (ex http://www.nic.ovh/en/index.xml http://www.nic.ovh/en/index.xml ) are using it for their customers.
Some companies (ex https://calculator.aws/ https://calculator.aws/ ) are using it for shorter URLs, while still being descriptive.
Sure some are just doing it because they can, other's have no good use case yet. But I fail to see how .bananarepublic being in the hands of one company is a detriment to me... the average internet user.
- gfaure 6y agoIt's a money grab for ICANN, precisely. Neither users nor developers have any say in this process, and the body that stands to benefit financially from accepting trademarks as TLDs is _not_ going to be acting in the interest of users or developers, are they? My argument wasn't specifically about .bananarepublic or .calvinklein. It was more that I don't believe trademarks should have been admitted, full stop. There's no way ICANN can make impartial decisions here that benefit the bulk of Internet users. I reserve judgement on generic TLDs, although I really don't like the implications to user confusion caused by .photo, .photos, .pics and the like.
- thayne 6y agotrademark names sure. But getting a TLD like .sucks is very nearly extortion.
- kzrdude 6y agoHas the money from the heist been sustainably invested? I'd love to see it guarding the openness and availability of the internet infrastructure as a whole.