4 ms·

Exactly the issue, they are cute but serve no purpose.

cleverjake 14y ago
I disagree wholeheartedly. The purpose of the article was that the author believes that People could be blocked from registering .book or .love due to corporate interests - thereby causing a "clusterfuck" This is just silly. No one will be up in arms over this, at all.
- Tloewald 14y ago
  Perhaps they won't be up in arms be but maybe they should be. What if American Express owned .com? Ten years from now owning .book might be seriously distorting. I don't know the solution, but I suspect that having generic TLDs is better. This is like giving big companies the naming rights over cities and streets (the latter they already do to very limited extents). If Chicago became "AT&T Chicago" an that's what you had to refer to it as to get mail delivered or travel there...
  - cleverjake 14y ago
    Its a free market. If amazon acts like a clown with .author, authors won't use it. If they abuse their position once it is actually influential, they can be sued and have their right to registrant revoked. simple as that. I don't understand your Chicago argument. No one is forcing anyone to use .author, .book, or anything else. It is one of hundreds (and soon to possibly be thousands) of available TLDs. This just seems like a steaming pile of FUD
    - ceol 14y ago
      Sued by whom? I only see another large corporation being able to take on Amazon. Then we're in the same boat as before. These TLDs are supposed to be generic, not country-specific like .ly or .io or .uk. Giving private entities control over them is an all-around bad idea.
      - cleverjake 14y ago
        >Sued by whom ICANN. They are the final say over domains, and can revoke any TLD at will. >These TLDs are supposed to be generic, not country-specific like .ly or .io or .uk. Giving private entities control over them is an all-around bad idea. What is 'generic' to you? Either way, you need to satisfy some form of requirement to the organization that owns the root server. Giving amazon control of .whatever is no more dangerous than giving north korea control of .kp.
        ceol 14y ago
        If ICANN has the final say, they don't need to sue them then, do they? > Giving amazon control of .whatever is no more dangerous than giving north korea control of .kp. The TLD denotes some sort of category. Giving North Korea control over .kp is fine because .kp represents North Korea. Giving Amazon.com control over .books is not fine because .books does not represent Amazon.com, nor is Amazon.com representative of the concept of books. If they were giving .books to the American Library Association, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Do you see the difference?
        x1 14y ago
        What if amazon bought book.com and then sold subdomains? So harrypotter.book.com?
        ceol 14y ago
        I wouldn't have a problem with that since it's a .com (which means a commercial website.) I would really like to see the Library of Congress get .books and make each ISBN a domain.
        cleverjake 14y ago
        If they make a request for it, they will most likely get it. ICANN has stated they will give preference to non profit/community programs. I would assume the LoC would fall into that category.
- Angostura 14y ago
  What if HSBC owned .bank? and these gtlds take off - would Barclays or Citi be happy to have their sites running on an HSBC-owned subdomain.
  - jamesbritt 14y ago
    What if HSBC owned bank.com? Would Barclays or Citi be happy to have their sites running on an HSBC-owned subdomain? No, they'd simply use something else. That's why something like .movie or .book will never become any some of de facto authoritative TLD; there are too many other options for those who feel shut out.
- seanp2k2 14y ago
  I am up in arms about this.

I disagree wholeheartedly. The purpose of the article was that the author believes that People could be blocked from registering .book or .love due to corporate interests - thereby causing a "clusterfuck" This is just silly. No one will be up in arms over this, at all.

Tloewald 14y ago
Perhaps they won't be up in arms be but maybe they should be. What if American Express owned .com? Ten years from now owning .book might be seriously distorting. I don't know the solution, but I suspect that having generic TLDs is better. This is like giving big companies the naming rights over cities and streets (the latter they already do to very limited extents). If Chicago became "AT&T Chicago" an that's what you had to refer to it as to get mail delivered or travel there...
- cleverjake 14y ago
  Its a free market. If amazon acts like a clown with .author, authors won't use it. If they abuse their position once it is actually influential, they can be sued and have their right to registrant revoked. simple as that. I don't understand your Chicago argument. No one is forcing anyone to use .author, .book, or anything else. It is one of hundreds (and soon to possibly be thousands) of available TLDs. This just seems like a steaming pile of FUD
  - ceol 14y ago
    Sued by whom? I only see another large corporation being able to take on Amazon. Then we're in the same boat as before. These TLDs are supposed to be generic, not country-specific like .ly or .io or .uk. Giving private entities control over them is an all-around bad idea.
    - cleverjake 14y ago
      >Sued by whom ICANN. They are the final say over domains, and can revoke any TLD at will. >These TLDs are supposed to be generic, not country-specific like .ly or .io or .uk. Giving private entities control over them is an all-around bad idea. What is 'generic' to you? Either way, you need to satisfy some form of requirement to the organization that owns the root server. Giving amazon control of .whatever is no more dangerous than giving north korea control of .kp.
      - ceol 14y ago
        If ICANN has the final say, they don't need to sue them then, do they? > Giving amazon control of .whatever is no more dangerous than giving north korea control of .kp. The TLD denotes some sort of category. Giving North Korea control over .kp is fine because .kp represents North Korea. Giving Amazon.com control over .books is not fine because .books does not represent Amazon.com, nor is Amazon.com representative of the concept of books. If they were giving .books to the American Library Association, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Do you see the difference?
        x1 14y ago
        What if amazon bought book.com and then sold subdomains? So harrypotter.book.com?
        ceol 14y ago
        I wouldn't have a problem with that since it's a .com (which means a commercial website.) I would really like to see the Library of Congress get .books and make each ISBN a domain.
        cleverjake 14y ago
        If they make a request for it, they will most likely get it. ICANN has stated they will give preference to non profit/community programs. I would assume the LoC would fall into that category.
Angostura 14y ago
What if HSBC owned .bank? and these gtlds take off - would Barclays or Citi be happy to have their sites running on an HSBC-owned subdomain.
- jamesbritt 14y ago
  What if HSBC owned bank.com? Would Barclays or Citi be happy to have their sites running on an HSBC-owned subdomain? No, they'd simply use something else. That's why something like .movie or .book will never become any some of de facto authoritative TLD; there are too many other options for those who feel shut out.
seanp2k2 14y ago
I am up in arms about this.