3 ms·

"intended to be private and reserved for Google’s use only" That's a lot different from "never using it" and it isn't like they publicly made a pledge that was

"intended to be private and reserved for Google’s use only" That's a lot different from "never using it" and it isn't like they publicly made a pledge that was what they were going to do with it...

dijit 5y ago
Ok, but the request: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1339 https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications... says: “The proposed gTLD will provide Google with direct association to the term “dev,” which is an abbreviation of the word, “development.” The mission of this gTLD, .dev, is to provide a dedicated domain space in which Google can enact second-level domains specific to its projects in development.” and goes on to say: > “18(b). How do you expect that your proposed gTLD will benefit registrants, Internet users, and others? > Given its intended use by Google, the .dev gTLD will best add value to the gTLD space by remaining completely closed for the sole use of Google.” And finally: > “18(c). What operating rules will you adopt to eliminate or minimize social costs? > Members of the public will not be able to register domain names in this new gTLD.”
- wongarsu 5y ago
  Those statements don't really say that none of the .dev domains will ever resolve, only that all .dev domains that do resolve will point to Google projects that are "in development" (which either means services that haven't officially launched yet or services that aren't deprecated yet, depending on interpretation).
  - dijit 5y ago
    Are you sure you want to make the argument that because words can be interpreted in their least charitable way that that’s what the intention really was? Reading that proposal is _clear_ to me that it’s for internal use only and that the impact to the global internet is that “it does not exist”. (And even hinting that it’s a good thing). Obviously they never _comitted_ to never using it, but it is absolutely apparent that their intent was “internal to google, unused outside” and given how poisoned the .dev namespace was already at that time: it was met with somewhat apprehensive open arms. Google then went and opened it and made it impossible to use locally by pinning HSTS on the TLD level. Which is basically the worst thing they could have done with it, given that people were using it locally already.. and some popular frameworks even recommended it as an option when running locally. (Though, there is an argument to be made there that they made sure things worked as expected by forcing the public use of .dev) Obviously it’s fine now. But don’t pretend this was obvious.

"intended to be private and reserved for Google’s use only" That's a lot different from "never using it" and it isn't like they publicly made a pledge that was what they were going to do with it...

dijit 5y ago

Ok, but the request: https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applicationstatus/applicationdetails/1339 https://gtldresult.icann.org/application-result/applications... says: “The proposed gTLD will provide Google with direct association to the term “dev,” which is an abbreviation of the word, “development.” The mission of this gTLD, .dev, is to provide a dedicated domain space in which Google can enact second-level domains specific to its projects in development.” and goes on to say: > “18(b). How do you expect that your proposed gTLD will benefit registrants, Internet users, and others? > Given its intended use by Google, the .dev gTLD will best add value to the gTLD space by remaining completely closed for the sole use of Google.” And finally: > “18(c). What operating rules will you adopt to eliminate or minimize social costs? > Members of the public will not be able to register domain names in this new gTLD.”

wongarsu 5y ago
Those statements don't really say that none of the .dev domains will ever resolve, only that all .dev domains that do resolve will point to Google projects that are "in development" (which either means services that haven't officially launched yet or services that aren't deprecated yet, depending on interpretation).
- dijit 5y ago
  Are you sure you want to make the argument that because words can be interpreted in their least charitable way that that’s what the intention really was? Reading that proposal is _clear_ to me that it’s for internal use only and that the impact to the global internet is that “it does not exist”. (And even hinting that it’s a good thing). Obviously they never _comitted_ to never using it, but it is absolutely apparent that their intent was “internal to google, unused outside” and given how poisoned the .dev namespace was already at that time: it was met with somewhat apprehensive open arms. Google then went and opened it and made it impossible to use locally by pinning HSTS on the TLD level. Which is basically the worst thing they could have done with it, given that people were using it locally already.. and some popular frameworks even recommended it as an option when running locally. (Though, there is an argument to be made there that they made sure things worked as expected by forcing the public use of .dev) Obviously it’s fine now. But don’t pretend this was obvious.