Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

ICANN is wrong

scripting.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 94 posts

Re: ICANN is wrong

#51

Post by hammock »

dsr_ wrote: post #2

If it's a company's trademark, fine -- let them buy the corresponding TLD. No harm done. Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict. And of course, trademarks are not fully international. Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.

It bothers me that no one thinks about this TLD issue on a higher level. More choice is always better. There is no question that, in the long run, giving people more choice over where they can be on the internet is a net positive.

But people tend to think of the Internet as this monolithic end-all be-all. As if there's no way to work around a domain squatter. For pete's sake, create a new internet if you have to!

You guys are gosh darned entrepreneurs. You aren't supposed to be the ones complaining about NBC-Comcast or Microsoft or fill-in-the-blank's monopolistic practices and begging the monopoly (or the government) to change the way things are done. You are supposed to be the one creating the alternative, the disrupting the business model, rebuilding and renewing the digital infrastructure. Don't limit yourself to small thinking and the status quo.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#52

Post by Kerrick »

snowwrestler wrote: post #39
sneak wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, because there are hundreds of other places one can register 'amazon' as a second-level domain.

And 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

Also, .edu and a couple ccTLDs. Basically, any TLD that has a rigid filtering process for obtaining one actually means something.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#53

Post by davewiner »

dfc wrote: post #42
davewiner wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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." Seems like I covered the Apple case.

But you did not cover the critical issue; you have not distinguished between www.sex and www.sex.com: "the problem. And it extends to words and concepts that weren't created by anyone living today. Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc. These things shouldn't be TLDs, they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to o…

Okay I'll cover it here (although I did elsewhere in this thread).

Maybe those domains shouldn't have been issued, but they were. And that's why you want to deal with these things before you get an installed base, not after.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#54

Post by davewiner »

larrys wrote: post #37
davewiner wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not entirely different, but those were the rules everyone was playing by then. So in that sense it's very different. We haven't agreed to these new rules yet. I don't think we should. Hopefully that's not too subtle.

"We haven't agreed to these new rules yet." Who's "we" sucka? (Sorry - see 2:17 in on the following had to crack a rare joke): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qoXDzsuqXFg "the rules everyone was playing by then" The rules are clearly laid out now. The difference is that you need to be able to pay real money to play now. Some of that is greed and some is practical. You need to limit the applicants to organizations with…

We as in the users of the Internet.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#55

Post by davewiner »

sp332 wrote: post #12

Sex, love, laughter, babies, books, songs, cars, poetry, etc..., they're too important, too basic to life. Not the kinds of things any company, for crying out loud, should be able to claim to own. No one claims that Verisign owns commerce just because they manage the .com domain. Or that Google would own all blogs if they get to sell .blog domains.

Partially because they allow others to register .com names.

Google said clearly in their application that they will not allow others to register .blog names.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#56

Post by davewiner »

naturalethic wrote: post #33

Why are TLD's needed at all? Why can't I just name my host any arbitrary set of characters?

This is by far the most interesting comment in this thread.

I think it's a fair question. Maybe at one point there was a need to have different namespaces, but what need there is now for it, hard to say.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#57

Post by davewiner »

duskwuff wrote: post #20
dsr_ wrote: post #2

If it's a company's trademark, fine -- let them buy the corresponding TLD. No harm done. Bzzzt, wrong. Trademarks are industry-specific: that's why Apple Records can exist alongside Apple Computer. If there's no likelihood of confusion, there's no conflict. And of course, trademarks are not fully international. Winer is right about ICANN being wrong. There's just so much else that ICANN is wrong about.

As an excellent example of this: Consider "Monster". Both Monster Worldwide (e.g, Monster Jobs) and Monster Inc (e.g, Monster Cable) applied for the .monster TLD, and there's at least one other significant claimant to that brand who didn't apply for the TLD (Hansen Natural / Monster Beverage Company, makers of Monster Energy). Hilariously, both Monster Worldwide and Monster Inc claimed in their applications that gran…

Or .acme or .ajax.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#58

Post by icebraining »

tolmasky wrote: post #47
sajid wrote: post #3

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 Sou…

I 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 h…

You 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.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#59

Post by TheMagicHorsey »

The author is blowing the problem out of proportion. If Google uses the .blog TLD abusively or in a way that is irrelevant, users will go to another .TLD. There is no limit to the number of places users can go. The value in the mindshare of a word like "blog" is overblown, and it isn't the same as the monopoly power granted by an exclusive patent. If .blog domains suck, then we won't go there. Nobody will host blogs there. Nobody will care. It won't be a hip place. On the other hand, if someone makes a .TLD called something arbitrary (say .ddffdd) and everyone likes it, then guess what, it won't matter squat what is on .blog, everyone will go to .ddffdd. That's all.

Lets not act like the landing page URL is such a big deal. It is if you built up a trademark and if everyone is used to going to .blog for every single blog. But nobody is used to that. And nobody cares. And even if they are used to that habits can very quickly change. There were lots of so called "monopoly" destinations a decade ago and not even one of them is still standing today. Its a whole new ballgame on the Internet. And every ten years its going to be a whole new ballgame again.

Dude is seriously getting emo about a non issue.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#60

Post by icebraining »

ciex wrote: post #45

Isn't the real issue here that it's just unnatural to use fixed combinations of letters to refer to websites? There is a reason that natural language is so hard to process for computers: It's inherently context-dependent and never has meaning per se. The domain name system on the other hand tries to impose a fixed naming system on us that is absolutely incomprehensible to anyone without technical knowledge. The only…

We already have those, they're called search engines. If you want a non-profit one you can use YaCy: http://yacy.net/
Post reply on HN