If the answer is they keep your domains, like they do with Adsense revenue when they ban accounts, then you should definitely be getting your .dev through a different domain provider who Google cannot avoid cooperating with because of ICANN rules they have to follow.
This was for a real TLD but I suspect that there is something similar for vanity domains.
There’s no reason that a domain can’t end in ANY string. Bingo, no more fake “shortage.”
It is extremely unwise and very much against the founding spirit of the Internet to allow one company this much control, especially one that has shown itself to be censorious in the past.
Despite the ban being due to a violation of YT terms of service they lost their entire Google account.
> "But because my Google account was terminated as well I didn't have access to my email so I couldn't see what happened."
System errors - https://www.reddit.com/r/GooglePixel/comments/7nrx07/google_...
We're twenty years in so likely there are actually thousands of legitimate reasons, the problem is their system seems designed to dismiss any evidence to the contrary so a false positive is a lifetime ban too.
Something is really fucked up if getting one of your Google accounts banned is a "nightmare".
To everybody who's reading this: make the necessary arrangements to make sure getting one of your Google accounts banned is not the end of the world for you.
Your advice is good tho. Diversify as much as possible so that any one company can't ruin your life.
This same argument actually dates back years for not using your web host for your domain registrar, because of contrived problems hindering domain transfers.
So I don't see the relevance in their thread.
Also, because of GDPR and WHOIS privacy/proxies, we frequently don't even know who the registrant for a given domain is anyway.
Same question for your colleagues at Google Domains.
Aaaaaaand its $11,500.
Mr. mslev does not consider [hisfirstname].dev to be worth $11k, so he will not buy it yet. But someone else might consider [hisfirstname].dev to be worth $11k, so they will buy it.
However, if nobody else values [hisfirstname].dev much, then Mr. mslev will buy it when it costs $12 (or earlier, if he thinks it's worth more).
So domain XYZ.dev is given to whoever values having XYZ.dev the most. And yes, people need money to demonstrate that they value it so much.
This also helps prevent domain squatting. I would love to buy asdf.dev and apple.dev and facebook.dev and hello.dev. apple.dev and facebook.dev would be worth it even at $11k because you could resell them to the actual companies, but laws effectively prevent this. However, I would not want to buy asdf.dev and hello.dev at $11k unless I know I could resell them for more than $11k. If I could resell them for more than $11k, that means someone else (the buyer) would buy it right now at $11k.
If everything was $12, bad guys would buy up asdf.dev and hello.dev and everything they could get their hands on, but now that's not a valid strategy unless asdf.dev and hello.dev are actually worth that much (or you'll lose money reselling them). And if they are worth $xxx, they will get bought at auction when the price drops to $xxx.
Speed will still win (buy valuable-name.dev at the crack of dawn when auction begins, before anyone else has a chance to, and resell it within hours), but hoarding domains long-term is no longer an effective strategy.
> If domains were cheap right away, bots would buy all them up.
No. Bots would buy them all up if bots were allowed to buy them all up. It's laughably easy to prevent bots from buying domain names if you don't want bots to buy domain names.
> This gives people the chance to buy a domain
This gives rich people/businesses the chance to buy a domain.
> future rounds in the hundred of dollars will be better for the average person.
After the rich have had their pick. Again, I don't see how you can with a straight face call this fair.
Here's a suggestion: Offer domains to all humans who can pay a reasonable non-refundable application fee. Block bots. When a domain receives more than one offer, randomly assign it to an applicant. Block domain transfers permanently to prevent squatters. Let any domain that isn't renewed fall back into the pool and become available (again to a randomly assigned new owner).
I'm sure there are pitfalls doing it this way, but it took me a minute to come up with that. A few hours of thought, some robust debate, and I'm certain we can come up with a fairer way to assign domain names.
That's where you are wrong.
I managed to get <lastname>.dev, and it's a somewhat common last name, for $133.50 on the "GA" pricing. I expect someone will grab it before then. But if not...
Do you happen to have a link to said list? A quick googling returned nothing relevant for me.
ICANN definitely went overboard on these required reservations, but of course we have no choice but to comply.
Think of all the companies with domain names that do not reference their product category. (ex. google.com, amazon.com, etc.). It's not like they needed search.com or shopping.com to be successful.
(That would also include names that describe a vertical that someone tried to trademark into being the name of a business anyway: pets.com and the like. If that trademark isn’t already well known, then this is just an attempt to end-run the auction system, rather than a valid claim.)
Given that TLDs can decide their own allocation policies, I’m surprised none of them have tried this yet.
The price starts off at an insane $11,500 per domain, and then slowly over the course of 2 weeks goes down to $12 per domain, first come first serve.
It's a pretty good solution in my opinion to the problem of how to "fairly" distribute domain names.
I want to pick up a few, but I'm going to wait until they are down to the lowest tier as i'm pretty sure nobody is going to pay even $100 for them. And if they do, well then they probably want it more than I do!
It's only insane if no one wants to pay that much. I bet tons of companies are willing to pay that for premium .dev domains.
Have you by chance heard of the Coase Theorem in economics? Which states that given that property rights are well defined and transaction costs relatively low, initial distribution of the property rights will not affect the efficiency of the final outcome reached. In other words, if a given company is given the rights to something and some other company would value that thing more, we do not have a problem, they will negotiate to the efficient outcome on their own by trade.
Edit: Normal dutch, not reverse.
Why? Even if it's "cute", it serves no other purpose than racking up prices and keeping buyers second-guessing themselves. Just run a normal Dutch or a second-price auction.
If your question is why not run a standard auction, the answer is that operational overhead to do that is much higher than simply having a given price for creations on a given day, and there'd thus be fewer registrars participating. You need a whole eBay-like experience to run a standard auction; it's a non-trivial amount of work just to support one launch.
This isn't a theoretical concern. We actually did use standard auctions for our first three TLD launches. They were operational nightmares. The Dutch auctions we're using now are much more light-weight, have greater participation, and are now the preferred way of doing launches across the entire industry. We're not even the ones who started using Dutch auctions for TLDs.
You'll just have to trust the word of someone who's been doing this stuff for years that the alternatives really are worse.
A good comparison is blockchains, which are also highly-replicated, cheap-reads expensive-writes DBMSes. CryptoKitties chose Dutch auctions to sell their kitties for a similar reason to that of the .dev registry: since putting state into their “DBMS” is so expensive, they wanted as stateless a system as possible. (In their system, even the current price is just statelessly computed by comparing the client’s time-at-bid to the chain’s recorded start-of-auction time. The only writes needed are to start the auction, to place the winning bid, or to cancel the auction.)
I wonder whether a different approach would work. Instead of basing TLD name spacing on nebulous terms (com,net,org,io,edu,etc) create a naming system that better reflects the real world. The abstracted terms lead to clashing. So addressing actually reflects physical addressing. There’s only ever going to be one company at Apple’s corporate address. Not sure how it’d work.
Edit-the tech to do this via gps even exists today.
I don't see a need to change the current system, but I'd rather move to random strings than tying them to some irrelevant and mutable piece of data.
My site could be 'uuid://09953e01-8164-4e40-8504-ed5507b50b03'.
This seems to solve all of your complaints. No clashing, reflects the real world (names are all meaningless is reality, and physical locations are nebulous).
> There’s only ever going to be one company at Apple’s corporate address.
On the other hand, there are corporate addresses that have many companies, and many domains, and many distinct technical departments with different needs.
What you're missing here is that domain names are meant to be easy to remember. That is their only goal.
They were created so people didn't have to memorize ipv4 addresses. Proposing that we use corporate addresses or gps coordinates is absolutely unrealistic and against the spirit of the domain name system in the first place.
New problem: memorising a UUID is even harder than memorising an IP address. Someone will eventually invent a DNS for the UUID-space, and we'll have this problem all over again.
It might~ be fun to see how much of the web you can explore just memorizing IPv6 addresses rather than using DNS.
The DNS system has also managed to make ip addresses less stable over time.
I haven't seen any uses of it in the wild though.
For future reference, search Google for "site:*.dev"
And this doesn't annoy you about '.com' or '.org'?
'pets.com' is owned by petsmart, and they're sure not the only pet store. Practically every generic sounding '.com' has been taken and has the "issue" you cite. 'x.org' was registered in the early 90s, and the Xorg foundation certainly isn't the only 'X' out there.
It's a little too late to protest now, this problem has existed since the dawn of the domain name system.
It feels like those would've been better suited for non-profit orgs
This is just yet another scattershot TLD. It's about as consequential as .ninja in the grand scheme of things.
Try putting a one-character .dev domain in your cart (0.dev is available as of now). It's not a lump sum plus $12/year. It's thousands every year after registration.
In a way, I guess this is useful for deterring "domainers".
Even a 4-letter word or name .dev is hundreds of dollars a year. I wonder if the annual fee will drop as the days go by or just the purchase price.
I mean, how do we get everyday normal people to use it?
Its been attempted before (namecoin etc)...but maybe some advantage could be given to make it more attractive.
• Google paid $25 million for “.app” 
• Amazon paid ~$5 million for “.buy”
• Amazon paid $2.2 million for “.spot”
• Verisign paid $135 million for “.web”
• Automattic paid $19 million for “.blog”
• ICM paid $3 million for “.sex”
In a lot of the large companies I've worked, money is siloed from one operating unit to the next. They would send bills between units and sometimes even departments.
The larger the company, the more common this seemed. It's not one giant piggy bank.
But note I think you mean the $12 price but that’s only available from the 28th Feb. To buy today it is $11,500 (unless as others have pointed out you got it as part of the trademark sunrise period)
Is it going to help people reach your site? I kinda doubt it. Will Google use it to index your site differently? Maybe, but I dunno. I hope not, but it would kind of make sense.
gTLDs have very different rules under ICANN from ccTLDs. For the most part, ccTLDs, the ones governed by countries are very subject to those own countries laws/jurisdictions as ICANN has let countries be relatively sovereign in their domain name usage. This is a part of why it is even possible for there to be colonialist/imperialist baggage in domain names, because ICANN won't interfere in "local" politics, it "simply" allows ccTLD registrars to act as they see fit. Once "hip" ccTLDs have had domains seized in regime changes, for example.
Meanwhile, as mentioned elsewhere in these threads, ICANN has a much more hands on regulatory approach to non-country-code gTLDs. They have formal escrow requirements and complicated seizure/forfeiture rules intended to protect domain registrants. These are not entirely immune to political battles, but are generally more "internationally protected".
Anyway, the point is awareness. Use a ccTLD if it makes you happy, just be aware that there is a different risk footprint than a gTLD.
Hence, right now kjaegrlkjnfvaf.dev is "$11,500 + $12/year"  while hn.dev is "$11,500 + $720/year" 
So alex.dev and aj.dev will cost $720/year forever, tim.dev, james.dev and emma.dev are $360/year, tony.dev and grace.dev are $180/year, olivia.dev and harry.dev are $98/year, yusef.dev, oscar.dev and sanjay.dev are $12/year.
Maybe not "prohibitive" but a big premium for the Alexes among us!
I mean with these sort of pricing, are Startup suppose to be creative with their name or else they are forced to pay thousands to Google every year.
To save some clicks (in addition to the $12/year):
Feb 19: $11.5k
Feb 20: $3.5k
Feb 21: $1150
Feb 22-24: $350
Feb 25-27: $125
After the 27th you only have to pay the normal $12/year rate.
Then you use a corporate domain name registrar to register it during the sunrise phase.
> There was no service found for the uri requested.
> Error 404 (Not Found)!!1
Doesn't seem to have those listed in the top article, though, not sure why. Maybe it'll update later.
EDIT: The official source seems to be https://czds.icann.org/
The latter is true (it protects against injection), but I'm not sure how the former is. How would it protect against ad malware?
It hardly seems like a worthwhile problem to solve at gTLD-scale.
advertising and malware (both ad-related and not) injection by ISPs is a well documented global issue.
It's a well-documented global problem.
> and you fix it with regulation,
Governments are often not opposed, and sometimes active encouragers or procurers of the ISP injection.
Also, the HTTPS requirement for .dev domains is regulation, even if it isn't government regulation.
Defrauding someone electronically is illegal but you still encrypt your data in transit.
For example, using GoDaddy, you can buy .dev domain for 800$ instead of 350$ on Friday (4th stage of early access).
And we have no control over registrar prices, or countries that any given registrar operates in.
I remember people complaining about the .dev tld for this reason. Many people have it routed locally.
That would have been a good gift to all the devs out there.
127.0.0.1 localhost.localdomain localhost
::1 localhost.localdomain localhost
I feel like mDNS isn't used enough in general so there are weird cross-implementation bugs in it. (Partly just because of weird overlaps between early Bonjour entities, modern mDNS stacks, and weird-in-betweeners like "UPnP".) A lot more peer-to-peer applications could bootstrap better from mDNS than currently do simply because bootstrapping from known HTTP(S) endpoints is easier and less buggy.
I've wondered at times if, say, enterprise adoption of .local and proper mDNS might be a kick in the pants to sort out mDNS and make it better for everyone.
I guess that miiight stop squatters, but I feel like it will result in a squatter with deeper pockets.
We used .dev domain internally in dev/testing environments and one day we were forced to switch domains because google bought it
.test, .example, .invalid, .localhost
I'm interested in buying one, but not from them.
It looks like someone looked at this and said "well 12 grand is affordable but not at scale so people will think twice" - no this is just impossible for some people and amplifying unequal distribution. People with this kind of money already have a "I can get 1000 of em" advantage at $12 a year. No need to give those people more of a head start.
This policy comes from a place of privilege and I despise it. Period.
What's next, ReCAPTCHA bypass if you have Google One? (Ha I say that like it's not already implicitly the case that RC trusts a well tracked Google user more.)
It just happens to be cute for developers from a vanity perspective, but it doesn't matter.
444 comments a couple of days ago in "Google .dev domain early access" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19178757