3 ms·
An open requirement from ICANN won't prevent Amazon requiring something outrageous ($1'000+) per domain that most won't afford. Any open requirements should co
by vladd 14y ago
An open requirement from ICANN won't prevent Amazon requiring something outrageous ($1'000+) per domain that most won't afford.
Any open requirements should come as a maximum price limit for creating new additional entries under the TLD.
Hopefully they'll also include non-discriminatory pricing (so that the owner of a TLD won't be able to raise the rent once a specific domain becomes popular in traffic/sales).
- wilfra 14y agoThat would be a PR nightmare for Amazon - instead of the PR coup that giving them away for free would be. Would be one helluva promotional tool for AWS if it came with unlimited free .app domains. I don't understand why people are so quick to assume companies are buying these up for nefarious reasons or to harm consumers.
- Swizec 14y ago> I don't understand why people are so quick to assume companies are buying these up for nefarious reasons or to harm consumers. Because, historically speaking, that's what big faceless corporations usually create monopolies for. It's not that they're against consumers, it's that they are for themselves. This rarely aligns with what's best for consumers on a small scale.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- wilfra 14y agoThis is the exact opposite of a monopoly. Everybody and their sister is going to have their own extension and anybody who can afford one can still buy their own.
- OGinparadise 14y agoEverybody and their sister is going to have their own extension and anybody who can afford one can still buy their own. so I can get a .shop extension too after Google gets the one and only?
- wilfra 14y agothink about them like really expensive .com's and this will be easier to swallow. you can't get google.com or sex.com because they are taken - but you can get any other .com that is available. or you can get on somebody elses domain for free like .blogspot.com .wordpress.com .tumblr.com etc. there are a lot of reasons i don't like that ICANN is doing this but fear that these companies are going to employ abusive monopolistic tactics is not one of them. and i think ICANN is likely to just ignore such complaints, because they don't make any sense. this is the opposite of a monopoly and these companies would be dumb not to share the extensions.
- OGinparadise 14y agoedit: his comment was edited after I typed mine and I'm too lazy to change it back and forth- for $1 million plus in costs. You are confusing the extension with a domain name. The point is not to have ONE company own and control an extension (like .com) and all the domains in it. ICAAN should control them and then allow people and corps to register domains within that extension.
- wilfra 14y agoI'm not confusing anything I'm trying to put it in terms you will understand. One company does control .com right now, and .net. Their name is VeriSign. Just like VeriSign administers those, Google is going to administer .shop.
- OGinparadise 14y agoWrong, they do not control anything, they administer it. I can register any .com that is free and Verisign cannot stop me. Google can refuse to allow anyone else from having televisions.shop or whatever.shop