4 ms·

This 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

by wilfra 14y ago

This 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 ago
Everybody 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 ago
  think 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 ago
    edit: 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 ago
      I'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 ago
        Wrong, 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
        deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
        wilfra 14y ago
        That's a theoretical problem that wont matter in practice. Google only has two practical options: they can make .shop completely open and operate it just like .co or .io, or they can lock it down and use it only for themselves, in which case it will essentially just be a vanity domain, not an extension. If they choose the latter, just use any one of the hundreds of other extensions that will be available. I hate that ICANN is doing this - but not because of some theoretical power it technically gives Google.
        unclebucknasty 14y ago
        I understand what you're saying, but not sure it will be that benign in practice. That is, given that the domain format requires a minimum of two parts (the TLD and one other), ownership of entire swaths of possibilities/permutations can be locked down via complete ownership of one TLD.
    - larrys 14y ago
      "The point is not to have ONE company own and control an extension (like .com) and all the domains in it." This has already happened. Afilias controls .info. Public Interest Registry controls .org. (Afilias actually runs the backend operations of .org for Public Interest Registry.) I operate a registrar and I pay money to both of them. When we call support (rare) the same people take the calls for both TLD's. I was around when this happened and .info was being floated and passed on an opportunity to invest in it.
- davidroberts 14y ago
  I don't think so. Based on what they wrote in their application for the 'app' tdl, Google, in the name of Charleston Road Registry, plans to totally close the TDLs they get : Charleston Road Registry intends to operate the proposed gTLD as a closed registry with Google as the sole registrar and registrant. The goal of the proposed gTLD is to allow Google and its Network to manage the domain name space for their application offerings. The proposed gTLD will provide Google and its Network with the ability to customize domain and website name application offerings to signal to the general population of Internet users that .app websites are indeed managed by Google. The specialization goal of the proposed gTLD is to extend the Google brand and reputation to each .app second-level domain. This specialization provides a mechanism by which Google and its Network can easily link and manage their applications and related services. This specialization makes it clear to Internet users that this is the authoritative and designated space where they can find Google’s and its Network’s applications offered in association with the Google brand and accessible via differentiated and streamlined web addresses.

by wilfra 14y ago

This 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 ago

Everybody 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 ago
think 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 ago
  edit: 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 ago
    I'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 ago
      Wrong, 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
      - deleted 14y ago
        [deleted]
      - wilfra 14y ago
        That's a theoretical problem that wont matter in practice. Google only has two practical options: they can make .shop completely open and operate it just like .co or .io, or they can lock it down and use it only for themselves, in which case it will essentially just be a vanity domain, not an extension. If they choose the latter, just use any one of the hundreds of other extensions that will be available. I hate that ICANN is doing this - but not because of some theoretical power it technically gives Google.
        unclebucknasty 14y ago
        I understand what you're saying, but not sure it will be that benign in practice. That is, given that the domain format requires a minimum of two parts (the TLD and one other), ownership of entire swaths of possibilities/permutations can be locked down via complete ownership of one TLD.
  - larrys 14y ago
    "The point is not to have ONE company own and control an extension (like .com) and all the domains in it." This has already happened. Afilias controls .info. Public Interest Registry controls .org. (Afilias actually runs the backend operations of .org for Public Interest Registry.) I operate a registrar and I pay money to both of them. When we call support (rare) the same people take the calls for both TLD's. I was around when this happened and .info was being floated and passed on an opportunity to invest in it.
davidroberts 14y ago
I don't think so. Based on what they wrote in their application for the 'app' tdl, Google, in the name of Charleston Road Registry, plans to totally close the TDLs they get : Charleston Road Registry intends to operate the proposed gTLD as a closed registry with Google as the sole registrar and registrant. The goal of the proposed gTLD is to allow Google and its Network to manage the domain name space for their application offerings. The proposed gTLD will provide Google and its Network with the ability to customize domain and website name application offerings to signal to the general population of Internet users that .app websites are indeed managed by Google. The specialization goal of the proposed gTLD is to extend the Google brand and reputation to each .app second-level domain. This specialization provides a mechanism by which Google and its Network can easily link and manage their applications and related services. This specialization makes it clear to Internet users that this is the authoritative and designated space where they can find Google’s and its Network’s applications offered in association with the Google brand and accessible via differentiated and streamlined web addresses.