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

21–30 of 94 posts

Re: ICANN is wrong

#21

Post by duskwuff »

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…

For normal domains, there's at least a well-defined process for registering, transferring, and disputing ownership. There's no equivalent for top-level domains, and changing the ownership of a TLD would be likely to cause disruption on a much wider scale than for a normally registered domain.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#22

Post by duskwuff »

sp332 wrote: post #14
jessedhillon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are entirely different things: .com is managed for the benefit of all commercial entities (and Verisign). Google's intended use of .blog would only be to assign domains to Blogger properties.

Do you think so? I think they would make far more money by selling subdomains.

From Google's application for the .blog TLD (application #527):

> The purpose of the proposed gTLD, .blog, is to provide a dedicated Internet space where Google can continue to innovate on its Blogger offerings. The mission of the proposed gTLD is to provide a dedicated domain space in which users can publish blogs. All registered domains in the .blog gTLD will automatically be delegated to Google DNS servers, which will in turn provide authoritative DNS responses pointing to the Google Blogger service.

So, yes -- it's just for Blogger.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#23

Post by TazeTSchnitzel »

icebraining wrote: post #15
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.

But only .com and .net have no real meaning attached to them. It doesn't really make much sense to register amazon.es or amazon.biz for the Amazon rainforest, now does it?

Eh?

.com is for companies. amazon.org or amazon.info might work.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#24

Post by larrys »

duskwuff wrote: post #21
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…

For normal domains, there's at least a well-defined process for registering, transferring, and disputing ownership. There's no equivalent for top-level domains, and changing the ownership of a TLD would be likely to cause disruption on a much wider scale than for a normally registered domain.

"There's no equivalent for top-level domains"

There is. It's the process that's happening right now. Applying for a tld doesn't guarantee getting the tld. Now is the time to object. Paying $185,000+ doesn't guarantee getting the tld. Lastly the intellectual property constituency had a big role in all the rules and discussions of this which has been going on for many years now.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#25

Post by icebraining »

obituary_latte wrote: post #19
icebraining wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That already happened with second-level domains, it's not a new vector.

OK, sorry. But it greatly increases the surface area, no? Would you say it really isn't an issue?

I think the vector itself is an issue; but I don't think this will make it significantly worse. For any domain, there's already hundreds or thousands of possible similar domains across the existing TLDs - adding a few more TLDs won't make much of a difference.

I also doubt that the future owner of .shoes - whoever that may be - will be stupid enough to devalue his own TLD by selling second-level domains like candy. There's probably more money to be made by banking on its exclusivity.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#26

Post by icebraining »

TazeTSchnitzel wrote: post #23
icebraining wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But only .com and .net have no real meaning attached to them. It doesn't really make much sense to register amazon.es or amazon.biz for the Amazon rainforest, now does it?

Eh? .com is for companies. amazon.org or amazon.info might work.

.com was for companies originally. It's been a long time since that was true.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#27

Post by jessedhillon »

sp332 wrote: post #14
jessedhillon wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These are entirely different things: .com is managed for the benefit of all commercial entities (and Verisign). Google's intended use of .blog would only be to assign domains to Blogger properties.

Do you think so? I think they would make far more money by selling subdomains.

In addition to being uninformed about the basic facts here, I think you are overestimating the market for $7 - $50/yr blog hosting and underestimating the brand value of an exclusive Blogger TLD.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#28

Post by bronson »

icebraining wrote: post #17
obituary_latte wrote: post #11

I haven't seen anyone talk about it, but there is another important implication of all these new TLD's: security. This will give malware purveyors a whole new plethora of vectors to exploit insofar as social engineering goes. Imagine regular user 'A' is surfing, looking for a cool new pair of shoes. They know that kewlShoes is their fav shoe company evar. Some entity has paid the huge fee to acquire the .shoes TLD in…

That already happened with second-level domains, it's not a new vector.

True, but now it's a much, much larger vector.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#29

Post by sp332 »

jessedhillon wrote: post #27
sp332 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think so? I think they would make far more money by selling subdomains.

In addition to being uninformed about the basic facts here, I think you are overestimating the market for $7 - $50/yr blog hosting and underestimating the brand value of an exclusive Blogger TLD.

I didn't mean hosting, I just mean selling the subdomain. Like Verisign sells *.com subdomains.

Re: ICANN is wrong

#30

Post by marshray »

I am considering configuring all DNS resolvers I am responsible for (i.e., those at my house) to block these new ICANN gTLDs.

Who's with me?

Post reply on HN