They also compete in random new industries each time this happens.
It doesn't seem like a smart move to lease a domain from a politically active mega-monopoly that might decide to randomly become your competitor in 2 years.
You'll be glad to know that TLDs can't simply be discontinued like other products might be. ICANN doesn't allow it. The procedures in place preventing a live TLD from shutting down are called EBERO; more details here: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/ebero-2013-04-02-en
The way it works is that all registries must send daily full backups to a third-party escrow provider, which are then used to restore the TLD under a different operator if the original operator shuts down unexpectedly. This is not some theoretical backup/restore procedure that goes untested; it's been used in the past, e.g. with .wed: https://www.icann.org/news/announcement-2017-12-08-en
But this typically only happens when the registry operator goes abruptly bankrupt, and is thus quite rare. Many, many widely used TLDs have been seamlessly sold/transferred across registry operators without you ever realizing it, including .io last year. That would be the "worst" you would expect from TLDs launched by large established players like Google. You actually get a lot more protections with gTLDs than you do with ccTLDs (such as .io), as ccTLDs aren't bound by contract with ICANN and thus aren't forced to do EBERO, or anything else for that matter.
I've heard that if you call during the day you get someone who's actually competent, not just some T1 support person.
Their UI is dead simple and gets things done well and fast.
While I agree with him taking the domain down, but what about the next CEO?
I personally don't use CF for various reasons, but this site take down is not one of them.
Meanwhile someone got their Adsense account banned and in those cases Google refunds the allegedly fraudulent revenue to the advertisers and do not pay you the non-fraudulent revenue. The person who got banned went to court over it because it looked like Google schedules these things to maximize how much they could keep, Google fought for four years to conceal where the non-fraudulent revenue went and then settled for $11 million to keep that shrouded in mystery.
Note the nobody who will say what happens to your domains when your account is banned despite relevant Google personnel participating in this page, but they have time to detail how we're covered by ICANN if Google with $106+ billion in savings goes bankrupt in thousands of years...
They designed this awful system exactly the way they wanted it to work and they choose to keep it this way, everyone else should probably not use them for domains or web hosting in case yourself or someone associated with your account is irreversibly judged to have committed a TOS transgression somewhere within their empire.
I also have some on Namecheap, are those safe?
So, please do not over generalize or compare apples to oranges.
Comparing Google products to Google products should not be comparing apples to oranges. If Google is frustrated with customers assuming they don't support their products, maybe they should support all of their products, not just a select few.
I was serious, though. People would be less frustrated if they had that helpful reminder on sign up.
Obfuscating that GMail isn't a real product is just another one of their sleazy business tactics, I guess.
- For Verisign with .com, they don't care if you're really a company or not.
- With Minds & Machines and .law, they only want qualified lawyers, courts, legal schools, etc. using the TLD.
Keep in mind that the registry and registrar are different things.
In this case, Google is the registry and thus the supreme court of who can and cannot be on this domain and there is no recourse if they yank your claim on the domain?
Is it more nuanced than that?
IME you're much more likely to be banned by the registrar than the registry itself. Registries want people to use their TLDs, so they're not going to reject post-registration unless you've changed how you're using the TLD and it's violating the rules they originally laid down. Registrars are much more consumer facing and will act accordingly - i.e. GoDaddy banning Gab.
> During both the Early Access Program and General Availability, there is a $12/year cost for .dev domains. Annual fees may vary for Premium domains.
Domains being sold by resellers are something different entirely, but yeah, some registrars that participate in reseller networks may lump those in as "premium" as well, which is confusing. Those prices tend to be one-time acquisition costs.
If I could buy a domain for 50 years, I'd do it.
As for longer registration periods than that, I suspect it's the same reason you can't, e.g., call up your cable company and try to pre-pay 50 years of service. They have no idea what things will be like that far down the road, and they don't want to have such longstanding obligations weighing on them.
It comes down to business decisions, not technical issues; technically speaking the spec allows for up to a 99 year registration period, though I'm not aware of any TLDs that support that. https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5731#section-2.5
For example, pitch a solution that doesn't just make squatters upload some bare bones index.html. Or check a registrar's checkbox to park the domain somewhere with content. Or, well, upload the minimum amount of substance that you think is necessary.
And now imagine the public outcry that can happen every time people have their domains taken from them (rightly or wrongly).
No, no registry wants to be in the business of doing that. You continue to pay for the name, it's yours.
We wouldn't need such a profusion of TLDs (most of which are awful: .dev is an exception) if real domain squatting was made feasible.
It's a nifty business hack actually, as unlike a 3rd party squatter, the TLD itself has no financial risk in upmarking domains.
I'm not trying to be snarky and thanks foe answering questions but this particular comment was a non-answer.
/remindme! 2 years
Except if your website was the daily stormer.
Really not at all impressed by this, and it only serves as a stark reminder of the failed state of TLDs.
Re: price, say the .dev registrar decides to offer domains for a hobby-dev-friendly $1 flat fee, first come first served. Wouldn't that just immediately lead to a resale market where predatory squatters register all the domains and extract the market price from anybody who wants one?
I think it would be cooler to have programming challenges or something neat.
But a cash grab just seems kind of, lame I guess.
I wouldn’t say I have bile, but I went from “this might be cool” reading the headline to “this is really stupid.”
Because the problem of resellers buying up TONS of domain names is a real one, and thus far a dutch auction style seems to be one good way to combat that (since buying 10000 names and selling 10% of them for an overall profit is a LOT more risky when getting them first means shelling out a LOT more money).
A challenge or something would probably drive costs up across the board, and it would still exclude those who want to use the domains that might not be able to complete the challenge (IMO a worse situation), and other methods of "verification" would either be gameable or would exclude many devs.
I don't know of any more "fair" way of allowing people to buy domains. Why should a hobbyist be able to buy "paypal.dev" when potentially thousands of devs could use that domain at paypal, and similarly "klathmon.dev" would be awesome to have for me, and it's pretty unlikely that someone will buy that out from under me with this scheme.
Not to mention that the timeline here is literally half a month. After Feb 28th, there is no additional charge. So we are talking about 2 weeks of waiting.
Literally: "We will create monopolies and increase competition."
 see financial report of the last year (10K). Search for "We operate our business in multiple operating segments. Google is our only reportable segment. None of our other segments meet the quantitative thresholds to qualify as reportable segments" and "How we make money" (Source: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1652044/000165204419... )
Maps - in flux like you said.
Phones are more than hardware sales. They also run an app store and license their own ecosystem.
Hosted services like Drive, Photos, and GSuite are also entirely in-house.
I am not accusing them of it. Just stating facts.
This isn't useful, because everyone knows that argument already. I'd rather know what Google's track record is specifically having to do with DNS (or fundamental Internet infrastructure).
Back in highschool (15yrs ago) pinging a DNS server was something I sometimes did when fixing people's internet, always used 126.96.36.199. No idea why it's still in my head so much later, 188.8.131.52 sure is a lot easier to remember.
think of the bright side. they might be willing to buy your neato .dev domain name back ... for $12.
You are dependent on your vendors, period. Choose them wisely. This is not a mystery.
You aren't dependent on your vendors if you can switch them out without destroying your company. The real mystery is why people turn their own businesses in to little barnacles on the skin of behemoths and expect to not get brushed off.
But ICANN, which is responsible for the entire hierarchy, expected that eventually at least some of the new gTLD registry operators would fail, and so there is an escrow agreement for each one. If the gTLD is popular enough that somebody else will operate it, the last daily backup from escrow is given to the new operator and things continue from there. I guess your new registry operator may set fees or other conditions your current registrar doesn't like, but if you like the new you can move to a registrar that's OK with them. The list of names in the registry doesn't vanish unless both your registry AND the third party escrow company screw up.
If the gTLD is grossly unpopular, it may not be possible to find a new operator for that gTLD registry. I don't know what happens in that case, although whatever it is by definition won't happen to many names.
I also don't know what happens for the very stupid gTLDs that are essentially for private use by a single organisation, like .kerrylogistics. And I don't really care, so long as the fees roll in to pay for everything. Actually I'd have billed them for their original request, .kerrylogisitics [sic] as well, but I guess someone felt that was too mean.
I hate the new trend of companies having multiple domains with different TLDs, as I never know this way if it's the same company or not.
Also it seems to be primarily USA's issue. Every other nation uses their domain for internal websites (like cats.de) where's Americans tend to just clump everything in `.com` and act all confused by simple TLD scheme.
The issue with your generalization of America is flawed. The internet started in America so "we" clumped everything into .com because we could. TLDs for countries came as a way to organize and route better. A German requesting amazon.com, should goto amazon.de. (This all happened before amazon and CDNs and other things.)
It is ignorant to think a fundamental concept of domain resolution, TLDs is something everyone should understand to use the internet. Do you know how your cell provider takes a request to dial a number and resolve it to another person across towers and potentially hard wired cabling? Most don't and they all make calls.
As commented by someone else, see e.g. whitehouse.com. The fact of whitehouse.gov being a different owner is much less of concern than that of whitehouse.com not having the expected owner in the first place (from the perspective of most visitors).
Really? No mention of Lets Encrypt? Does anyone still buy certificates nowadays, especially for dev sites?
Which is interesting, I would expect Google to promote Lets Encrypt... Or do they assume devs already know about it?
Let's Encrypt provides DV (Domain Validation). Not OV (Organization Validation).
Obviously .dev is intended for software development and most domains there would probably be using DV only so this might not apply to it, though.
It might sound useless for those who doesn't know what it is.
However, for those who does it is very useful and getting more useful.
Browsers might (if not yet, coming soon to you) raise red flags if you try to use a website whose certificate was signed by a rogue CA that, according to DNS instructions, shouldn't be able to do so for that domain.
Browsers might demand OV from high profile websites in theory.
etc, etc, etc.
Maybe we are
> Let’s Encrypt offers Domain Validation (DV) certificates. We do not offer Organization Validation (OV) or Extended Validation (EV) primarily because we cannot automate issuance for those types of certificates.
There are 2 reasons:
1. To limit damage from key compromise and mis-issuance
2. To encourage automation.
What is the issue with running the certbot on your server? It's not like you have to run it manually.
Here are official reasons: https://letsencrypt.org/2015/11/09/why-90-days.html
Wildcard certs are available for almost a year now: https://community.letsencrypt.org/t/acme-v2-production-envir...
I want to go to a website, have it tell me to put a string into a meta tag or DNS TXT record, and then save the key it returns on my box. Then I want to forget about it for the next 2-3 years.
Honestly I don't even want to do that. I want my nameserver to generate a DANE/DNSSEC record for me automatically, and for browsers to honor that. It isn't like domain verification is any more secure than a DNSSEC record would be.
We do something similar, although not through a REST API. We handle all this cert management centralized on one server, which publishes the DNS records for DNS verification etc.
On our other servers is then just a simple script that periodically checks if the certs on the machine are near the expiry date and if so pulls a new one from the central system.
With many commercial registrar's, although they offer a valid and long certificate, their technical aspects aren't very good. Many CAs don't support ECC certificates, the must-staple flag or CT SCTs embedded in the certificate.
I work a lot with web PKI, and every time I have to deal with a CA that's not LE or Digicert, I sigh out loud.
Dutch auctions are incentive-compatible - they allocate the resource to the person that gains the highest utility for having it. Maybe Google got some of the people working on ads auctions to design this pricing structure.
This pricing structure is not just for .dev domains.
It's generally a good idea to have some kind of auction for the reasons the parent comment mentions, as it is a more economically efficient way to allocate the limited namespace to those who want it the most.
I'd like to have a very short domain personally but it's hard to anticipate what the demand will be like here.
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. Any large company is able to drop a ton of money on something that has marginal utility for them, whereas a small business that would gain much more utility from it may be outbid just by virtue of having the wrong opponents.
We can say that, when bidders do have similar bankrolls, whoever wants the domain the most is likely to buy it first. If they don't, whoever has the bigger bankroll will probably be able to buy it first.
However, Google determined that no, unix.dev should be a premium domain, and "stole" the reservation from me (after I have already paid for it). They later added it to the premium domain list, and they asked me for $11k to keep the reservation.
TBH, I expected to lose the domain because of trademarks or whatever, but apparently it was simple highway robbery.
Btw, I didn't even get my money back, just "store credit".
"Reservations" mean nothing. Google Domains is merely one of many registrars that have customers all vying for domains in the same namespace. A "reservation" just means that the registrar will make their best effort to attempt to get that domain for you at the specified price; it doesn't mean that some other registrar won't get it first, or that some other customer isn't willing to spend more and will get it on an earlier day of EAP.
Until the domain is actually created with you as the registrant, it isn't yours in any sense of the word. There are even registrars out there that will, upon acquiring a domain, auction it off amongst all of their customers who pre-registered it.
It is fair to claim it legally under copyright etc like the OP mentioned, but otherwise, he paid for it and gets to do whatever with it.
So yes, minor anecdote, and I genuinely appreciate the hundreds of Google employees who really help the Web and share useful knowledge (and don't lead developers into using techniques best suited for billion-user websites, as FB often does) but I'll reserve to right to side-eye anything Google says.
Every web dev I know bitches about it.
There's nothing about Safari that makes it "the new IE8". Ironically, the very same HN that bemoans every new thing as "why should devs jump onto this shiny new things, just slow down already" criticises Safari for not jumping onto every new thing.
HN is quite diverse and I'm pretty sure those are two disjoint sets of users. (I'm in the former group myself --- not a fan of presenting information in such a way as to decrease its accessibility while also increasing resource usage.)
I bet I could make those accordion sections work in all browsers going back to IE5 without much effort, and use nothing near 120KB of JS to do it... but no, most "modern web devs" would rather pile on the bloat of their libraries and "best practices" to make something that works only in the very latest version of the one browser they personally use.
<summary>/<details> tags with JS polyfill is all you'd need.
Why you think something would be broken when a polyfill is used as fallback, I don't know.
Google was really carrying a big part of the webkit development.
Define "accepted". Hastily implemented and shoved down everyone's throat by Chrome doesn't mean "accepted".
> Google was really carrying a big part of the webkit development.
Nope. Google is dominating the development space with utter disregard for public/dev opinion.
Thank you for contacting Google Domains. My name is <SUPPORT_PERSON> and I'll be happy to assist you. Let me quickly read your notes here.
How are you?
Hi. I'm trying to read your website but it's broken in one of the dominant web browsers in the world.
Hi you said that the link https://domains.google/tld/dev/ doesn't work on Safari?
The accordion links are broken.
Have you tried in Chrome already though or maybe a private window in Safari already?
"Is this a one-time payment? Will I still need to pay $12 every year to keep my domain?" click (nothing happens)
It's just maybe a cache
It's not just a cache
Alright but have you tried other browsers maybe?
I've checked it here and the link you sent works just fine
Did you test in the latest Safari on the latest macOS? Because it doesn't work fine.
Sorry, not using Mac
But we'll look into it if we get feed backs similarly
We apologize for the inconvenience but please take a look into it on a different browser like Chrome for the time being
here are other reports https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178833
Oh alright thank you
Let me check that
We are already looking into it <ME>
Don't we all hate reports like this one. "Yeah I know what information you need but my high horse told me to write this crap instead."
Where exactly do you think that came from? Kindly note the words "you said".
It's almost as if there was a "please tell us what you're asking about" field that you fill in before being connected to a chat agent or something.
> $11,500 for 9 days early access
Makes video games early access look like childs play.
> Can I buy a .dev domain even if I'm not a developer?
> Yes! From tools to platforms, programming languages to blogs, .dev is a home for all the interesting things that you build.
I don't get what Google thinks they'll get out of sponsoring putting sites under development online.
If you're already running your own internal DNS servers (to serve .dev, .test, etc.) , then just buy a domain for your org for internal use (e.g. "<mycompany>-internal.<tld>" or "<mycompany>-private.<tld>", or if your company is "<mycompany>.com" then purchasing "<mycompany>.net" or similar), split-horizon so that queries from the Internet direct to some CDN-hosted static page saying "nothing to see here, internal use only, if you are an employee please VPN in" and internally you find the actual services.
You never run the danger of your internal domain being unroutable (since you indisputably own it), none of the stuff on subdomains of your internal domain are internet-discoverable (since none of the internal services are exposed externally), you retain the flexibility of eventually making internal services Internet-routable when you get around to building out a BeyondCorp model (if you ever do), and it probably costs a negligible <$10/year in registration fees.
I’m not the OP, but I’m in the same boat.
Not every development environment, company, and set of IT/security policies are the same as yours. Just because you cannot envision the problem doesn’t mean the problem doesn’t exist.
I believe .localhost is the "official" recommended TLD for local development.
> The ".localhost" TLD has traditionally been statically defined in host DNS implementations as having an A record pointing to the loop back IP address and is reserved for such use. Any other use would conflict with widely deployed code which assumes this use.
So it might work but it could be problematic if the intent is to use ".localhost" as a local network domain rather than just the local host.
This one looks the safest and least prone to confusion.
> ".example" is recommended for use in documentation or as examples.
> ".invalid" is intended for use in online construction of domain names that are sure to be invalid and which it is obvious at a glance are invalid.
Both of these look problematic from a terminology standpoint, not a technical one.
There is a draft RFC to reserve .internal for this purpose, which I think makes a lot of sense.
The only thing I wish was easier was having a TLD for network local names but not link-local names. I typically just buy a name for that but it seems clunky since any in-use name that uses public DNS TLDs I feel ought to be DNS server independent.
I do wish /etc/hosts accepted wildcards, though. It can be a touch annoying having to add a new rule every time I create a new subdomain.
It seems silly to continue using .dev, especially when this will now be a public and commonly used TLD. So now, if you're modifying .dev records for a local/private network, and then you or someone on that network attempts to go to a public website that is using the .dev TLD, it might not work, or you'll get a completely unexpected result. Doesn't seem worth that hassle.
The .dev TLD was never reserved for your dev use. If you had been doing it correctly and following the RFC, you wouldn’t have to change anything with your workflow.
Now, if they ever release .test for public use then I’ll grab my pitchfork with you.
Worked fine for Windows folks. Was an huge pain in the ass for anyone on a Mac (using Bonjour) or Linux machine (using Avahi). No auto discovery of printers.
> .dev will operate as a closed gTLD. It will provide Google with the opportunity to differentiate and innovate upon its Google products and services through its use of the gTLD. This will promote competition in the gTLD space by inciting competitors to respond with improved gTLD operations, greater range and higher quality products and services, and⁄or the creation of their own respective gTLDs, to the benefit of all Internet users. Launching the proposed gTLD will also generate increased competition in the online marketplace by adding incremental availability to the second-level domain pool.
Presumably you were already editing your hosts file or running your own DNS server in order to make .dev resolve for local development, which you can continue to do?
mkcert is one.
Not all web development is three guys on Linux laptops at WeWork.
I'm trying to imagine a webdev workflow where you couldn't get a machine-local CA working.
Something tells me it's not actually that much trouble though, and people just like whining about minor inconveniences because it's the internet and they can.
I've been annoyed by how Google uses Adwords for a while; suppose you're company in a competitive, undifferentiated space. I just searched for "enterprise rental cars," and the first thing below the search box, an ad, was for getaround.com. The second was an ad for Enterprise, the third was the organic result for Enterprise. Google is effectively telling these companies "You wouldn't want someone to happen to see a competitor first and click them when they search for them, would you? Then pay up." That's a racket.
Same with this. They're inventing the demand for this TLD, then telling developers to pay up if they don't want someone to take their name.
For a lot of developers the demand was already there because they had their local virtual hosts on .dev. It wasn’t standard, but it was extremely common.
Then one day Google announced that it owns .dev and all the developers had to move their development domains to a different imaginary TLD or .example since Chrome would no longer let them test web sites on their development environments.
I am a developer. I will not pay Google or anyone else to use .dev simply because I have learned that Google can not be trusted. What prevents Google from taking .dev back in-house one random day and kicking everyone’s web sites to the curb? Absolutely nothing. Because you don’t own the domain. You only rent it.
I keep my development and testing on locally routed .dev and simply don’t use Chrome. Fortunately the people who sign my paychecks only care about Safari. Not everyone has that luxury, but I do, so I will make this minuscule stand that Google will never know or care about because an algorithm cannot know or care.
The fact people go to Google gives them their power to extort business for ranking. But thats because Google remains valuable - people use it because it works, or at least because of inertia that nothing is remotely better yet, and so long as people still value the search companies can do the cost benefit analysis to know if paying the rent is worth it.
And its fortunate the only people who really care about search ranking are those trying to make money off it. There are a lot more egregious crimes being committed in the privacy space by Alphabet or by rent seekers across the economy than a business making money as a parasite off other businesses trying to make money.
Instead they have implemented a braindead dutch auction-style system that ensures developers will not be represented fairly. The marketing and implementation of this are out of touch and its doubtful this effort will be successful.
It would be like Github launching a new web site and allowing 'developers' to select their usernames on a first-come basis if they paid $12k for the privilege. It's incredibly tacky and shows a lack of self-awareness on the part of Google.
It would be interesting to know what they make at the end of the pre-sale.
If defending against squatters is the top priority, they could also make it an application-driven process: Let people submit proposals about what they want to do with the domains along with a link to their organisation and have some group grant applications (preferably along some previously published criteria)
Not to mention all the hurt feelings when someone's application is denied and the domain stays undeveloped or becomes a terrible website.
Auctions seem unfair but money is an extremely simple system for allocating finite resources. And it's not like you need a dictionary word domain name to have an online identity. It's almost pure vanity.
Domains would also be much more expensive, as there would need to be human evaluators in the loop for each domain name. The base price would likely need to be at least 10X higher to fund all this.
Why not? If they charged a flat rate at launch, domain speculators would snatch up all the valuable domains and you'll have to buy it from them at an inflated price. At least with this system google is pocketing the premium rather than third parties.