4 ms·
Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names. For example, he writes: "Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it a
by sajid 14y ago
Each reason the author gives against the new TLDs also applies to domain names.
For example, he writes:
"Not so sure about Amazon buying .amazon, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and .apple could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit."
But the same reasoning applies for domain names:
"Not so sure about Amazon buying amazon.com, because it also is the name of a rainforest in South America, and apple.com could be a problem for growers and lovers of the fruit."
- __alexs 14y agoThe Amazon rainforest is not a commercial entity. Associating the rainforest with .com makes no sense.
- joshschreuder 14y agoThere are plenty of non-commercial entities with .com addresses.
- sneak 14y agoNo, because there are hundreds of other places one can register 'amazon' as a second-level domain.
- icebraining 14y agoBut only .com and .net have no real meaning attached to them. It doesn't really make much sense to register amazon.es or amazon.biz for the Amazon rainforest, now does it?
- TazeTSchnitzel 14y agoEh? .com is for companies. amazon.org or amazon.info might work.
- icebraining 14y ago.com was for companies originally. It's been a long time since that was true.
- damian2000 14y agoit's still true in some country TLDs, like .com.au for example.
- josteink 14y agoBut that is .com.au, not .com. It's not a gTLD.
- snowwrestler 14y agoAnd these will continue to exist even if Amazon.com the company secures .amazon the TLD. I think Dave's mistake is that he believes that TLDs represent anything canonical. Originally they were meant to, but only a few do anymore[1]. In almost every case, they're just a few extra characters at the end. [1]gov and mil edit: formatting
- Kerrick 14y agoAlso, .edu and a couple ccTLDs. Basically, any TLD that has a rigid filtering process for obtaining one actually means something.
- quesera 14y agoThere are a few absolute and total lies buried in .edu, and have been for decades. I hesitate to mention the domain names, because I appreciate the humor in them. Also because they were approved by John Postel himself, and he was a good guy.
- stfu 14y agoPlus ICANN was setting the entry barrier so ridiculously high, that generic domain names are almost exclusively landing in the hands of these corporations, who are already strong in a particular market. It is in so far not stimulating competition but strengthening already successful market players. The next step is most likely that Google returns the favor to ICANN and puts a stronger weight on the domain extension for search result relevance - just another step towards making a more corporate internet.
- duskwuff 14y agoFor normal domains, there's at least a well-defined process for registering, transferring, and disputing ownership. There's no equivalent for top-level domains, and changing the ownership of a TLD would be likely to cause disruption on a much wider scale than for a normally registered domain.
- larrys 14y ago"There's no equivalent for top-level domains" There is. It's the process that's happening right now. Applying for a tld doesn't guarantee getting the tld. Now is the time to object. Paying $185,000+ doesn't guarantee getting the tld. Lastly the intellectual property constituency had a big role in all the rules and discussions of this which has been going on for many years now.
- duskwuff 14y agoUnfortunately, the objection process is thoroughly stupid. If I recall correctly, there's a fee of several thousand dollars to file an objection to an application!
- tolmasky 14y agoI think part of the point is that its not clear what value these new TLDs add. Google already owns google.com. By creating the possibility of ".google," you aren't doing much else other than forcing them to own it defensively. There isn't really a benefit to mail.google over mail.google.com. In other words, in a large sense you are right -- all these issues exist for the TLDs we have today, and they've already been hashed out. Why create another round of 90's style litigation around who bought .coke first or bless a new set of owners with "high quality" tld's like .food? This isn't going to realistically expand the "number" of domains available, its only going to force companies to defensively buy even more permutations of theirname.___, and for all the domains that are already taken in ___.com form, it will only add confusion by having a parallel .___ version.
- icebraining 14y agoYou are not forcing them to own it defensively. For $2k - less than pocket money for Google - they can register their trademark with the ICANN which prevents others from applying for it.
- tolmasky 14y agoThe explanation you gave still requires paying money, again, as a purely defensive move. Fine, you don't care about Google since it has so much "pocket money" laying around. How about startups that can't afford to throw 2K around every time ICANN decides to add TLDs?
- pyre 14y ago"every time ICANN decides to add TLDs"? There are Top-Level Domains. You can't go any higher without knocking everything else down a level. ICANN has already decided that the top-level namespace is up for grabs, and the $2K fee is a one-time payment to protect your mark. Am I missing something? How can they "decide to add TLDs again?"
- icebraining 14y agoSo it's a startup that is small enough for $2k to be too much, but big enough for competitors to be spending $200k+ to abuse their trademark as a TLD? Where can I find this whimsical company?
- prof_hobart 14y agoThere are some subtle differences - Apple owns the .com variant of the URL (being a company, which the fruit isn't), but not the .org. It also doesn't own all of the international apple domains. Apple.co.uk for example belongs to some UK-based illustration company.