6 ms·

Presumably way the same as .google and all the other special-purpose organization-specific domains. Blame ICANN for allowing any public or private organization

• carl_dr 1y ago
  Genuine question: why “blame”? Does it really matter?
  • ionwake 1y ago
    yes blame. ofcourse it matters. tld use to be good insight into the purpose of the website. IE, google.com, or wikipedia.org
    • jrflowers 1y ago
      Those tlds still exist. The existence of butts.adult doesn’t create confusion about oxfam.org
      • portaouflop 1y ago
        You misled me, butts.adult does in fact not exist.
        • jrflowers 1y ago
          Oh wow. That seems like an oversight. Somebody with $400 to burn could either support or refute my point on this matter
    • justusthane 1y ago
      With some exceptions (.gov, .edu, for example), it has never actually meant anything. Anyone can register a .com, .net, or .org for any purpose.
      • hakfoo 1y ago
        I thought com/net/org had distinct use cases until the early 1990s when it became a free-for-all.
        • 9dev 1y ago
          That was the idea, but from my memory, people chose their own meaning and conventions pretty much from the start. So much about the internet was envisioned with a completely different use case than what it actually was used for, it’s amazing things even kinda worked out in the end.
  • NoMoreNicksLeft 1y ago
    Spamming up namespaces for "commercial" purposes is never a good thing.
  • postquantumfax 1y ago
    DNS allows search so we really should have started rejecting everything that isn't qualified with an end dot as punishment to ICANN.. Instead random common names might be treated differently on every network to make sure these people can't issue certs that will be trusted for them in your own network, etc. Now prioratizing unambiguos naming would be somewhat acceptable if ICANN was tacobell and just a steward of naming on the side.
    • ahoka 1y ago
      Hot take: TLDs should not exist but parking domains should not be allowed.
      • hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
        And cost if domains should increase near exponentially with the more you own. One domain? $10/year, two domains: $50, three: $250, etc.
        • kmoser 1y ago
          Without rigorous ID requirements, that restriction can be circumvented easily.
          • postquantumfax 1y ago
            With rigorous ID requirements, that restriction can be circumvented easily.
            • hsbauauvhabzb 1y ago
              I think the problem is they domain sales are for-profit, there’s no incentive to prevent squatting as it’s presumably a huge profit centre.
      • 9dev 1y ago
        With AI churning out a pretend blog or news site or web shop in a few minutes, that would be hard to enforce. I’m with you on the necessary death to TLDs, though.
  • bigyabai 1y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons
• lysace 1y ago
  Time for another DNS root system. Maybe. /s
  • JdeBP 1y ago
    The Open Root Server Confederation has long since been wound up. But some of the other alternative root servers are still around even now. One example: https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/dot https://wiki.opennic.org/opennic/dot
  • deleted 1y ago
    [deleted]
• 827a 1y ago
  The fact that private entities can monopolize gTLDs, including words that aren't even made-up or reasonably copy-written (e.g. the MAN group in Europe owns .man) was an embarrassing and dishonorable decision by ICANN. I'm all for having tons of weird, awesome gTLDs, and I'm even for brand-specific gTLDs like .google, but the cost these entities should incur by asking for one to be created is: Anyone can use it. 1. A set number of slots should be opened every 10 years (e.g. 250 new gTLDs every ten years). 2. Entities submit bids for the gTLD slots, in terms of dollars. The 250 highest bids win. 3. If your entity wins a slot, you submit the gTLD you want, and there's a public comment period where claims against the gTLD being created are heard (e.g. if you own the copyright in some jurisdiction and someone else is trying to register it, submit a claim). 4. If it passes, your entity is allowed to register a set number of TLDs on the gTLD (e.g. 100) before anyone else gets access. This is what you bought: The fact that the gTLD exists, and the first 100 domain names on it without competition). 5. It then becomes a real gTLD. Some variant of this is how it always should have worked, and entities like Google should be forced into a sophie's choice: They could fight .google indefinitely, win, and it'll never become a gTLD, or they could sponsor it, claim the first N domain names, but otherwise make it available to everyone. Of course, they might actually have valid jurisdictional claims against anyone else who tries to register a .google domain on copyright grounds, so maybe they fight and win in the courts against anyone who tries to use it; but the point is that it shouldn't be ICANN's decision.
  • Daviey 1y ago
    What should happen with the proceeds of the sales? Is the highest bidder really the best custodian of a tld? Why have a quota of, as you say, 250 every 10 years? What does this do to help, what issues does it address?
    • righthand 1y ago
      Quotas are sometimes applied to create value of a simple asset aka scarcity (or a bureaucrat tax). Think limited number of taxi medallions or street vendor or liquor licenses. That makes the medallion/license/gtld hold value.
• int_19h 1y ago
  The weird thing is, are they even meaningfully used? I don't think I've ever seen a .google URL in the wild, neither for their websites nor for API endpoints.
  • neurostimulant 1y ago
    Well, there is https://www.registry.google/ https://www.registry.google/
    • grgergo 1y ago
      And MS is increasingly dropping the .com: https://cloud.microsoft/ https://cloud.microsoft/