3 ms·

Wow, that is vile. They seriously want exclusive control of TLD's like .dev and .blog? What the shit? I mean I know Google is a publicly traded company and thus

by zanny 12y ago

Wow, that is vile. They seriously want exclusive control of TLD's like .dev and .blog? What the shit? I mean I know Google is a publicly traded company and thus has no real ethics or morals to speak of, but trying to strongarm ICANN into giving them TLDs that should be generic ones is pretty damn evil. At that, what is ICANN doing not making those TLDs available, not under some draconian Google lordship, but the same way you get every other TLD ever? I want a .dev and a .blog!

notatoad 12y ago
Google isn't having to strongarm anybody. ICANN outlined a process for creating new TLDs, and that process is essentially "if you give us enough money, you can have a gTLD all to yourself". If you have a problem with that (and you probably should, it's a pretty stupid process) you should get mad at ICANN.
dragonwriter 12y ago
> At that, what is ICANN doing not making those TLDs available, not under some draconian Google lordship, but the same way you get every other TLD ever? Other TLDs are either proprietary for countries who can set their own policy (ccTLDs), or assigned to organizations for either open or closed registration based on various policies, some "open" (in that the registry that controls them accepts registrations under generally-open terms, with perhaps some limits) and some "closed" in that they belong exclusively to one organization (closed TLDs include, e.g., .gov, and .mil; restrictive, but not exclusive, TLDs include .cat and .edu, fairly open ones include, among others, the ubiquitous .com) The new "pay money to ICANN and get a gTLD" thing is different than the past in that you've got a large number produced on application and going to the highest bidder, rather than a small number each (other than the ccTLDs) created with their own fairly unique justification. But Google bidding on them is doing what lots of other people are doing since ICANN announced this process. Is the process good? I think not. Is Google's use of it especially problematic? I don't see how.
- WillPostForFood 12y ago
  It may not be especially problematic, but it is more problematic than if they were grabbing .google. It shows that the gTLD plan wasn't well considered. The more generic the TLD, the more there is going to be an expectation that it is open.
  - dragonwriter 12y ago
    > It shows that the gTLD plan wasn't well considered. That ICANN's gTLD rollout, is, from concept to execution, a complete disaster is not a point I'm going to argue against. The question I'm asking is that given that the ICANN gTLD rollout is happening, what is the basis for complaining about the way Google is behaving?
narrowrail 12y ago
>what is ICANN doing not making those TLDs available, not >under some draconian Google lordship, but the same way you >get every other TLD ever? I want a .dev and a .blog! I'm probably one of the biggest slackers/ dumbest on HN and I know all about the ICANN process (it was highly covered here on HN), and how Google came to control those TLDs. How could you have missed it? It only happened in the last couple years, and it wasn't a secret or anything.

by zanny 12y ago

notatoad 12y ago

Google isn't having to strongarm anybody. ICANN outlined a process for creating new TLDs, and that process is essentially "if you give us enough money, you can have a gTLD all to yourself". If you have a problem with that (and you probably should, it's a pretty stupid process) you should get mad at ICANN.

dragonwriter 12y ago

> At that, what is ICANN doing not making those TLDs available, not under some draconian Google lordship, but the same way you get every other TLD ever? Other TLDs are either proprietary for countries who can set their own policy (ccTLDs), or assigned to organizations for either open or closed registration based on various policies, some "open" (in that the registry that controls them accepts registrations under generally-open terms, with perhaps some limits) and some "closed" in that they belong exclusively to one organization (closed TLDs include, e.g., .gov, and .mil; restrictive, but not exclusive, TLDs include .cat and .edu, fairly open ones include, among others, the ubiquitous .com) The new "pay money to ICANN and get a gTLD" thing is different than the past in that you've got a large number produced on application and going to the highest bidder, rather than a small number each (other than the ccTLDs) created with their own fairly unique justification. But Google bidding on them is doing what lots of other people are doing since ICANN announced this process. Is the process good? I think not. Is Google's use of it especially problematic? I don't see how.

WillPostForFood 12y ago
It may not be especially problematic, but it is more problematic than if they were grabbing .google. It shows that the gTLD plan wasn't well considered. The more generic the TLD, the more there is going to be an expectation that it is open.
- dragonwriter 12y ago
  > It shows that the gTLD plan wasn't well considered. That ICANN's gTLD rollout, is, from concept to execution, a complete disaster is not a point I'm going to argue against. The question I'm asking is that given that the ICANN gTLD rollout is happening, what is the basis for complaining about the way Google is behaving?

narrowrail 12y ago

>what is ICANN doing not making those TLDs available, not >under some draconian Google lordship, but the same way you >get every other TLD ever? I want a .dev and a .blog! I'm probably one of the biggest slackers/ dumbest on HN and I know all about the ICANN process (it was highly covered here on HN), and how Google came to control those TLDs. How could you have missed it? It only happened in the last couple years, and it wasn't a secret or anything.