Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Amazon wins ‘.amazon’ domain name, aggravating South American region (theconversation.com)
336 points by thg 29 days ago | hide | past | web | favorite | 156 comments



I continue to be against this and similar transactions as it is antithetical to the hierarchical design of DNS.

We are approaching a model akin to AOL keywords. Instead of a business directly controlling the namespace, we have a quasi-public institution that likely will continue to act at the behest of corporate interests.

For those who say the ship has sailed: I say this is only another chipping away at the democratic nature of the net. We must push back, or the beatings will continue.


When has DNS ever been democratic? Since day one e.g. the .GOV and .EDU TLDs have been used only for educational institutions in the US, whose portion of the word population is on the order of 5%.

There's surely a lot of sucky things about the new arrangement where big companies can buy TLDs, but it's much more democratic for the rest of the 95% of humanity than when the US had de-facto control of the system. Just look at how many new TLDs are e.g. owned by Chinese companies.


To be historical, the US had this system running inside the US for a very long time before it was deployed worldwide.

It's a quirk of a home grown system having outgrown its original purpose.


1970 (NORSAR) from 1968/1969 (beginnings of ARPANET) is not 'a very long time' and predates DNS by over a decade anyway.


The requirement for .edu domains to be US-based was added in 2001.


I hadn’t realized this. So, we can pack .edu full of for-profit degree mills, but myriad respectable research universities the world over are forbidden. Mind boggling.


With some exceptions like teco.edu...


Um... curious to hear what the alternative is.

Fully democratized decentralized naming simply lets the powerful squat on all the good names.

It's the tyranny of structurelessness.


What's a "good name"? Would "amazon.com" be considered one, if Bezos hadn't picked it?

The current hierarchy is pretty weird. US GOVernment gets one, and US MILitary gets a separate one, and all US COMmercial entities get one, and most of the rest are non-specified ORGanizations, and the rest of the world gets to build under their 2-letter country codes. Except when company in San Francisco thinks it's cool to use one of those country codes to spell the end of a word, of course.

Ask any person to draw a diagram which includes all groups (and potential groups) in the world, and nobody will ever come up with what we've got now.

I don't see an obvious solution. It's a bad idea to let companies create their own top level domains (especially when it's taken from a region of indigenous peoples whose land is threatened!), but maintaining the old status quo doesn't seem like such a great idea, either.

Have there been any serious proposals to overhaul the structure of DNS names?


> all US COMmercial entities

.com isn't US-specific.


> It's a bad idea to let companies create their own top level domains

Why? I would love to have an open DNS system not controlled by some registrars, and by a body which dictates that .paris is fine, but .hdjdhduh is not (except for a huge cost)


Maybe this has been done already and has been ineffective for some reason, but I guess the alternative is an organisation - maybe a different quasi-public institution - whose charter explicitly includes and emphasizes looking after the interests of institutions other than profit-making corporations?

That is a thing that happens, and it has a real effect. Those organisational charters inevitably reflect some underlying ethical system, and I think the role of those ethics in influencing organisations and their members is still under-appreciated in some contexts (I'm certainly not saying that free market economics or libertarianism - for example - don't have any ethical system, by the way - more the contrary). For example, over here, picking maybe the most visible examples, the NHS, Channel 4, and the BBC - and many of the people who work for them are heavily influenced by the ethical ideas behind them.


I'm Brazilian, and I'm not sure .amazon would be useful for us. Here, we don't call Amazon rainforest, well, amazon. We call "Amazônia" and in Spanish "Amazonia".

I don't see how Brazil or Peru would use .amazon for public interests, unless it's targeted for international purposes (read: tourism).

But let's be honest, the "protection and awareness" is needed here on South America, where they are destroying it.


A lot of country top levels aren't based on the local language's name, but the English one.

For example, Zhongguo, the country sometimes known as China, uses .cn instead of .zg.

And yeah, regarding tourism, most people traveling there from outside of Brazil will probably be searching for the English name. I can see why they'd prefer .amazon for that purpose, even if the uses are limited.

But then again, how many domains does Amazon (the company) really need?


Zhongguo also has .中国 and .中國 as top-level domains which would presumably be more intelligible to Chinese speakers.


That is true, but non-ascii TLDs are also relatively recent.


I didn't realize there even were non-ascii TLDs. I thought non-ascii domain name components were restricted to everything but the TLD.


Domain names are ascii; there's just an encoding for unicode: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punycode


Right, but those weren't originally allowed for TLDs. It looks like internationalized ccTLDs were finally approved in 2009.


ccTLDs are based on ISO 3166-1 Alpha-2 codes, except some older ccTLDs before this was standardized (e.g. .uk instead of .gb) and a special case (.eu). It is also governed by a different entity/policies than gTLD (ccNSO instead of GNSO)

There was also a case where a country was removed from ISO 3166-1, resulting in ccTLD being removed (transitioned to other TLD). See .yu[1] which has been split into .rs and .me because of Yugoslavia breakup into Serbia and Montenegro.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.yu


I remember seeing the split in Yugoslavia mail come though when I worked for BT on the international side on interconnects - a rather sobering email to read.


Doing the opposite is quite inconvenient indeed.

When you see .hr, Croatia is probably the last thing you would think of. It's the first two letters of Croatia spelled in Croatian ("Hrvatska"). There are only so many ways to shorten a word to two characters, and .ca, .cr, and .co were all taken. I guess they could have went with .ct, but they've decided on .hr instead.

Similarly, .flights is always gonna be more useful to have control over compared to .vuelos (same, but in Spanish).


Inconvenient... for English speakers. But more convenient for locals. Seriously l9n is still an important aspect of software.


> l9n is still an important aspect of software.

Is this different from l10n?


Apparently using l9n instead of l10n is common enough to deserve a footnote in https://www.oreilly.com/library/view/java-cookbook/059600170...

  Sometimes written L9N by those who can’t count, or 
  who think that L10N that looks too much like “lion.”


Ha, interesting thanks. I was wondering how someone could've independently come across the concept of counting it out without coming across the correct term itself, but I guess if it's a commonly-made mistake, that explains it.


The People's Republic of China (Zhōnghuá Rénmín Gònghéguó) and Republic of China (Zhōnghuá Mínguó) are the official names for the two contemporary sovereign states currently claiming sovereignty over the traditional area of China.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_China


The top level domains were chosen based on the wishes of the countries' governments, at the time the system was created. For example South African .za is based on Afrikaans which isn't even the most common language spoken there. The reason is because the SA government still practiced apartheid back then.


That's because that's their ISO country code, they didn't specifically pick it for the domain.


They wanted the tld for tourism.


> They wanted the tld for tourism.

How many sites are they expecting to operate in order to justify a dedicated tld ?


Probably more than Amazon.

There are several countries, multiple markets, and potentially countless government agencies or local companies operating in the area.


How many sites does Amazon need?


This isn't really a good-faith argument (for Amazon or SA) because of the reliance of opinions inherent in the word "need".

It could be argued Amazon only "needs" one domain: Amazon.com (or com.amazon, heh). It could also be argued Amazon "needs" 1,000 domains (aws.amazon, books.amazon, electronics.amazon, prime.amazon, videos.amazon, etc). Who's to say who's "right" in these opinions?

Nobody really seems to care about what the most "right" domain is, anyway. Ignoring the mess that is .com/.org/.net, it's a daily occurrence to see .ai domains outside of Anguilla, .ly domains outside of Libya, etc.


The real argument here to me is actually for AWS purposes... in which case i can see millions.


Presumably even if they don't intend to use the tld for lots of sites (perhaps stores could have subdomains) they'll be using the tld as a way of proving authenticity. Only they can create links with .amazon so they can assure customers of their safety from phishing etc.


It’s about money. The TLD is worth a lot. While I think .amzn would be more appropriate there is also a significant phishing risk for .amazon to be open to the public. Not everyone uses a password manager.


I suppose it will become an issue when Amazon likely tries to block any effort to register .amazonia


If they did that, then yes, I think the countries would have a proper grievance against the company.


Yep. Only reason they’re looking for an English TLD is because they expect more tourists from English speaking areas than from the local regional populations, otherwise they’d prefer .amazônias/.

Also for the region/biome it’s usually referred to as “The Amazon”


No, it's because the internet is in English. How is it possible someone on hacker news does not understand this?


>The company had previously proposed providing USD$5,000,000 worth of Amazon products and services as compensation to the states, but this offer was not included in the latest proposal.

Thats rather close to being comedic. 5m in Amazon gift cards.


"But this offer was not included in the latest proposal" is also brutal.


As a Brazilian, I'm pretty happy with this.

1. Corrupt states haven't gained control over an important TLD.

2. Corrupt states aren't getting gift cards that would be used for making the lives of corrupt officials better.

3. Corrupt states trying to surf in Amazon.com's success lost.


Corrupt Corporate Executives won over Corrupt Governments. Should we celebrate this?

The corrupt governments can lose elections, but Bezos is a tyrant for life.


Is this a joke? If you disagree with Amazon (that is doing nothing corrupt in this matter) just stop using it and you're good.

Good luck getting rid of your corrupt government, if you live in the middle of the forest.

Bezos is no tyrant. He is where he is because he satisfied people who willingly made his company a lot of money.

You can vote to put Bezos out of business by stopping to use his services.

Good luck voting once every four years to get rid of corrupt government officials. Good luck believing elections aren't arranged (especially if you live in the middle of the jungle in a highly violent place).

Let's stop drinking the Kool-Aid... shall we?


> You can vote to put Bezos out of business by stopping to use his services.

He already has more money than almost anyone else, it's not like he needs my scraps.

As the stock classes shenanigans show, it's easier to overthrow a government that to remove a rogue CEO with preferred voting stocks.


Full article title is Amazon wins ‘.amazon’ domain name, aggravating South American region and undermining digital commons

I had to cut it down as it wouldn't fit otherwise (26 too long).


Lots of angry people in here which I am a bit surprised at.

Have you all forgotten what it was like before all these new TLDs became available? You couldn't find a decent domain due to squatters. This affected everyone from the layman to startups.

What is the entire region of the geographical Amazon going to do with a whole TLD? How is that going to possibly improve their situation? With this new TLD expansion, they have so many more options to work with now: Amazon.whatever.

If they really cared about TLDs so much, why not get .forest? .amazonia?


>> What is the entire region of the geographical Amazon going to do with a whole TLD?

'Therefore we decide, that you don't need whole TLD. This company (whoa, with money!) will use it better'


How would you like it to be decided? I'm not going to say I love the slow ICANN process, but it was designed to allow all stakeholders to have their say while trying to prevent endless deadlock. This application has been in the works for 7 years. There have been many appeals of various kinds. The process is, as far as I can tell, extremely transparent.

At the core of the debate is whether Amazon is a brand or a location. It's clearly both. Then the question is how to structure the shared governance of the TLD.

According to the Amazon.com proposal email [1], ACTO is objecting to the current proposal. Several ACTO member states have submitted proposals individually, but there is no joint proposal (according to the email from Amazon.com). I couldn't find any ACTO joint proposal - they only seem to agree on blocking or delaying Amazon.com's proposal [2][3][4]. ICANN has a responsibility to make a decision at some point.

Call me crazy, but I have very low confidence in ACTO's ability to run the TLD given that seven years into this process, we don't have a joint ACTO proposal

[1] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/huseman...

[2] https://www.icann.org/resources/board-material/resolutions-2...

[3] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mendoza...

[4] https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/correspondence/mena-to...


Tell me, what's the worst that could happen?

If you can't trust the TLD then just block *.amazon from your system services.


OC's point is that these countries can take literally any other ccTLD they want. Brazil can take .brasil and then have amazon.brasil, which makes more sense to me anyway.

But if you start to let people argue incessantly over who gets what ccTLD, the end result is that there just aren't going to be very many ccTLDs.

OC is saying "treat ccTLD's like we treated .com's: first come first serve" and you'll end up with a much richer variety of domains.


Has that changed? You are not getting an amazon domain. Names like .forest usually cost 10x more than .coms the trust in .forest is as high as .info


When can get .myname for $35/year I will be happy with Amazon having .amazon.

Seriously why don't the ISPs of the world just collude and reprogram all DNS servers to equate .x to .x.com or some arbitrary consencus-chosen TLD to spite these corporations' displays of power, and make it meaningless/impossible to own .x? People can then go to http://news.ycombinator/ if they wish, and then Y-Combinator can go ha-ha at Amazon for their shenanigans.


Did Amazon (the company) really need this? I don't get it. It feels like bullying for no real purpose.


If only to prevent someone from creating a site with the name dontshopat.amazon, fuck.amazon, betterthan.amazon, etc.

It could be a defensive thing.


They would have been able to object to ICANN when the other application for .amazon was put in.


Could also be a security issue. Creating one of those sites would surely help nefarious actors create amazon related scam sites. If amazon controls the TLD then only amazon can create .amazon sites.


They still don't need exclusive rights to the TLD. I doubt Brazil or one of the other eight countries was planning to create such domains.


I think the defensive aspect is underestimated.

I know from personal experience that carving out a clear online domain name is a lot harder with the expansion of tlds.

Also, I expect phishing sites will have an ever easier time registering convincing domains. So we're going to end up relying on browser blacklisting... not exactly an improvement for security.


Did anyone needed this? I don't think so. In my country we have a cctld for tourism and most companies don't care neither do clients.


Does anyone need the custom TLDs?


Only ICANN really needs them, because money.


Disposable email services seem to find them useful.


Well, Amazon asked for it to begin with, and the involved South American nations filed to have it blocked. It doesn't seem at all like bullying for Amazon to continue to make their case instead of just abandoning it. Much like the .aws TLD, this provides some level of protection against phishing attacks and makes obvious when a page is an authentic Amazon page.


Other than a countermeasure against phishing, perhaps.


Does Google really need .google?

They don't, but why not get it if it's available?

I find these new TLDs to be abhorrent, but if they exist, why not own one if you can?


With toll free numbers every land grab makes sense to the buyer, but no one else can take .google and existence of this and other brand TLDs will suck for their product experiences.


Google isn’t the English name of a huge rainforest.


fatal flaw not naming your global conglomerate after a physical location. why not just incorporate a small territory in the pacific, dub it "google republic" and then go for .google?


This is awful, but I'm much more angry that they own the .book TLD.


Yeah! They're depriving it from Facebook!


Or, you know, the IFLA[1] or some organization which at least makes a passable pretense of have the best interests of people in mind.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Federation_of_Li...


Somewhat tangential, but how many internet users(except us old-timers) really make use of domain names in their use/workflow these days?

I wonder if there's some research on this. I'd assume that most of the internet population have their smartphones/app ecosystems for getting to Amazon or even looking up hypothetical Brazilian tourist info through Google.

I understand why both sides want the TLD but I'm not sure what significant usefulness it has other than property rights regarding domain names and the future of how these cases will be settled.


More clear to write " go to brazil.amazon" than "please Google 'Brazil Amazon official tourism board"


Why not "go to amazon.br"? It's even shorter.


Most would expect that to be the Amazon store in Brazil, similar to amazon.de or amazon.fr.

It would be funny, if not poetic justice, if Brazil decided to do just that following this decision. Likely Amazon would sue them and an arbitration court would side with Amazon though.


Countries have a lot more freedom on how to administer their two-letter ccTLDs than do the operators of the gTLDs. I don't believe they're required to defer to trademark holders in the way you describe, though many choose to.


I didn't mean to imply that they have to defer to Amazon. On the other hand, countries have in the past done things that were within their rights and were still sued for large sums. I was thinking of cases like Occidental v. Ecuador.


>Likely Amazon would sue them

Amazon would have to be pretty dumb (and petty) to do that after this kerfuffle.


More clear to write "mainstreet-mom-n-pop-store-killers-dumping-cheap-junk-for-ever-lower-prices-who-cares-about-any-future.com"


They're only this successful because consumers prefer them. There's not some noble meaning or morality to having a "mom-n-pop" store.


Of course they "are successful because consumers prefer them", that's kinda definition of being successful. This is saying nothing. What would be a little more revealing is to give a real explanation of why consumers prefer them. And, as it happens, a whole lot of this explanation would consist of what basically is dumping, very dubious anti-competitive practices and other things that kinda-sorta are considered violating antitrust laws. And sometimes it is so blatant, that I can only admire the virtue of lawyers managing to keep this thing afloat. And antitrust laws exist for a reason as well, because game theory offers plenty of ways to make people choose what is worse for everyone in the long run.

So saying there's nothing intrinsically good about "mom-n-pop" stores compared to what Amazon is is a very dubious thing to say. To re-iterate, sure, consumers chose Amazon for a reason, but things are not black-and-white and deciding if something is good or bad is far more nuanced than just that.


It says everything. Consumers don't care to support small local stores because they would've otherwise. You realize Walmart was around for 30 years before Amazon? And several other major chains? People want the prices and selection of online shopping and so that industry has changed.

I'm not sure where this rustic idea of "mom-n-pop" general stores comes from because there are still millions of thriving small businesses well integrated in their local communities. The key is that they don't sell the same basic goods that Amazon sells.


There are a lot of people that _do_ believe there is something noble and moral about mom and pop stores and supporting them. I believe the belief flows from the idea that local communities are important, and such stores are an integral part of them.


If all those people believed in them then they would buy from them. Their actions prove otherwise.

It's fine to be an entrepreneur and own a small business that takes part in the local community, but that has nothing to do with the business you're in. Selling regular household merchandise is not a good business anymore.


What's the difference between a bourgeoisie middle class stealing labor from the masses of workers, and one titan of industry? The difference is a rounding error to the mass public.


I think the concern from these complainants is precisely for this bourgeoisie, not for mass labor.


To be clear, they're only this successful because they were in early with a lot of cash behind them, and didn't have to charge sales tax. Fairly quickly they got to a size where they could simply steamroll over the competition or buy it, and instead of taking profits, they could reinvest them, because as a future monopoly, they would have free rein to raise prices.

If they were always going to be just a piece of the market, they would have had to show profits for that, what, 15 years that they didn't have to? This put brick and mortar stores at an extreme disadvantage.


Walmart existed for 30 years before Amazon was founded. It was much bigger, better capitalized, sold far more than books and was responsible for putting entire malls out of business.

Amazon just executed better. Competition is good for consumers who have clearly stated they prefer the prices and availability of online shopping. Small neighborhood stores no longer served the market.


Of course that helped Jeff Bezos get $100B, but even with sales tax, there's no way small companies can survive as major players in a commodity market at national to global scale.


The Amazon and its tributaries flow through the countries of Peru, Bolivia, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, and Brazil before emptying into the Atlantic Ocean 6, 437 kilometers (4,000 miles) from the Amazon's headwaters high in the Andes mountains of Peru.

So, no it's not the exclusive property of Brazil.


Having it as a tld makes it clear, since you could easily have brazil.amazon, bolivia.amazon, peru.amazon, etc. That's more hierarchically correct than amazon.com.br, amazon.bo, amazon.pe.

For most people though I don't think it makes a difference, as I don't think DNS hierarchy is well understood by most internet users.


I get what you are saying, however, Brazil(br) "hosts"-has it in- The Amazon; as do the other countries. I would expect a resolver to go to a top level namespace- i.e. a country that has people to run the infrastructure and not a river- and all those places scope out certain features contained with in them.

In my mind: .(root server) > (global feature/country/company) > (feature/host) e.g.

. > .br > amazon

makes more sense than

. > amazon > ccTLD.

I think a better example for your point would be `.ocean` as the logical way to divided it would be pacific.ocean, atlantic.ocean, etc. however no one entity "owns" the whole or said parts of the ocean and dolphins do not want to administer DNS servers. That said, naming things is hard.


> So, no it's not the exclusive property of Brazil.

I don't think that was the claim, it was just an example


Alternate title: Corporation wins '.amazon' domain name, aggravating the Amazon.


Amazon did the same thing to the '.book' top level domain name. Like they own the business vertical of books for the world now.

IMO it is critical to split the company and take away these public properties from them.


Who ever owns .wedding owns the business vertical for weddings? This just doesn't add up. There might be good reasons to split Amazon up, but this isn't one of them.


No, the argument is that Amazon is not the only organisation with a rightful interest in the ".book" top level domain and so should not have been granted exclusive control over it.

I guess the second argument is that the arrogance displayed in saying things like "no, there shouldn't be any commons on the internet" (which is what closing such a generic tld does) is evidence that they have grown beyond what is healthy for society.


Amazon can rent the domain name from the governments of South America.


If that would be the end result of the domain being awarded to the governments then the domain should be awarded to Amazon.


The article states that the rules changed in 2011 that allowed Amazon to purchase the domain. Which they attempted to do in 2012. At what point in time would the Amazon region have been able to purchase it? Having a hard time looking up what the rules might have been, but I would think they could have gotten it issued before then, under old rules could they not have? Seems like there wasn't interest in the domain until someone else proposed it, or were they also working on it too?


Shouldn't that domain name go to Greece?


As a Greek, I'd say we don't particularly feel a need to have every mythological name. It seems to me that the people currently living in the region with that name deserve and could use it more.


Nah.

But that reminds me of the SMBC comic from 2012 (when SOPA was being discussed), about how India invented the number zero and so by ad absurdum of 'IP belongs to content creators', "owns" half of all digital data. https://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/2012-08-29


Maybe zero the figure was invented in India but the notion of zero was known before that without putting a name for it.


The first computer graphics program I used in the early 80s on Cromemco hardware running their "ix" flavor os was called Amazon.


I kinda wish the Amazon region companies would band together to block the domain nationally, but I guess that won't happen.


Is there a chance of getting the following chances now? www.shopping.amazon, www.webservices.amazon etc.?


Probably aws.amazon rather than webservices. They've invested a lot of time branding the acronym AWS, I don't see them rolling that back now.

As for whether they make those the new generic addresses... I'm not sure. I think they are more likely to use the new tld for internal dns and keep their existing public names.


If they can get .amazon, it stands to reason we all deserve our own TLD. I’m actually for this.


It's called a gTLD and anyone can apply for one.


But only the rich can pull strings and get their own? Sort of like the “public comment” part of city planning: there to distract from a committee stacked with real estate developers.


It's not a question of pulling strings, it's a question of being able and willing to maintain a complex piece of software and hardware after you get the terminaison.


Sounds like capital to me.


Do you suggest someone else should pay for you to maintain the hardware for your tld? If enough people are interested in your tld, you already will get the capital to maintain it, if not, what's the point of having it?


The company representing that which is destroying the river-basins ecosystem. (unfettered capitalism with-regards-to what are effectively planetary lungs.)

200,000 acres of Amazonian rainforest are burned every day circa 2019, but hey: next day delivery, frappucinos, netflix, and my comfort zone...


> The company representing that which is destroying the river-basins ecosystem.

If any organization represents the destruction of Amazon's river basin ecosystem, those organizations are exclusively the state institutions of the 9 countries that cover that area. They are the sole responsible entities that decide which activities are and are not allowed, and how to enforce their rules to punish those who break them.


Technically true, though the history of corporations like United Fruit and East India Company suggest those governments do not operate in a vacuum.


You overlooked the influence of the US State Department, War/Defense Department, and CIA over those nations.


*representing

concrete metaphor. I have zero evidence on Amazon's business practices being directly related to deforestation.

having said that, Bezos, as the worlds richest man, is in a huge position to do something about the environmental catastrophe we are bringing upon ourselves, and so far he's appearing preoccupied with gaining the US military machine as his biggest client.

He appears to have put literally no effort into changing businesses practices in the slightest, with regards to packaging, delivery means, etc


But why would he?

And should we wait for him to do something? I think we shouldn't.


I don't think that moving to using drones for delivery will have taken "literally no effort".


https://icannwiki.org/ICANN_Board

Note that they have one Mexican, one El Salvadorean, but no South Americans. Also note that the only African is a Tunisian ex-Google employee. And the only east or south-east Asian appears to be Japanese. Why are we letting this group of business people make decisions about global internet? Why not, for example, scientists from the different countries?


> global internet

this is a good time as any to remind that the vast majority of the world is under illiberal regimes and religious dictatorships and a "global internet governance" would outnumber free, liberal countries 2 to 1.

you'd need to start putting barriers and borders to the committee to avoid regime using it to steer the internet toward oppressive goals, and there's not one way of partitioning it that would make the whole thing politically acceptable by the countries making the cut and by those not making it. it'll become just another bargaining chip on the international political bickering, at which point competing business interest under a liberal constitution start to seem a more reasonable compromise.


Right, so you mean everything outside "the west" never have any legitimate grievances and can thus be denied a voice in the name of protecting democracy?

Further, ignoring the global nature of the internet when it comes to the governance of it seems simply unwise, and is very clearly a political decision in itself and not neutral.

It is also clearly illiberal to explicitly deny agency to a multitude of affected stakeholders that have been allowed to join the network, despite their dirty track record.


In a tyrannical country of 20milion people ruled by a dictator, giving the dictator agency doesn't help the 20million suppressed people. Never confuse a nation of people with its (often illegitimate) government


> Why are we letting this group of business people make decisions about global internet?

Whether you like it or not, those "global businesses" do have an internet presence that's unquestionably more extensive than some countries. It would not be fair if organizations or countries that clearly are not interested in having a say on any issue regarding the global internet would have more of a say in these issues than those whose livelihood is the internet.


Hopefully the Internet is more than just about jobs and business.

FWIW, it's said that .int (international) never gained momentum for these globe-spanning organisations.


What’s wrong with .com/.net/.org?


IIRC Those are governed by the US; they aren't truly international


Valid point, thank you. I wonder who would govern a truly international TLD then. UN? New body?


how do you know they aren't scientists?


The individuals have bios in the Wiki page I posted.


I didn't check them all, but none of them I saw said they weren't scientists.


You must be looking at a different link. I'm talking about https://icannwiki.org/ICANN_Board

Below are the first 4 I looked at:

Prior to his position with ICANN, Marby was the Director General at the Swedish Post & Telecom Agency in Stockholm, Sweden.

Career business person: https://icannwiki.org/Cherine_Chalaby

Leon Sanchez is ... is a lawyer and head of the Intellectual Property Division for Fulton & Fulton, a law firm in Mexico.

Previously, Burr served as the Deputy General Counsel and Chief Privacy Officer at Neustar from May 2012 - March 2019.


This is pretty astonishing.

Clearly, .amazon was intended to refer to the geographical region, given that no other corporations have their name as a top-level domain.


If you have a million dollars a year (rough estimate) burning a hole in your pocket, you too can own a TLD under a liberalized ICANN policy that has existed for many years now. Amazon was only different because there was a conflict about who should own it.

Some of the new TLDs created are actually useful, Russia got a TLD for the IDN value that native Russians would recognise more easily than .ru -- .рф and it's been pretty successful for locals.

Some of them were land grab attempts, people see .com makes a lot of money and imagine that some of that could be theirs, but alas mostly they're wrong. .horse, .aero, .london and so on. Their only value to the wider community is that they allow jokes like http://my.lovely.horse/ or http://ibless.therains.downin.africa/

A few of them are straight up vanity, but whereas your vanity domain might be costing you $25 pa from an expensive vendor with a crappy web site thrown in, operators of TLDs are spending many orders of magnitude more to obey rules

.kerrylogistics .kerryproperties and .kerryhotels all exist for example, and obviously those are completely useless, anybody looking for those outfits will either Google or knows their much shorter "real" domain name - but I guess probably they get a bulk deal on some of the technology needed, maybe the whole lot costs them only $2M per year to maintain.


IDN ccTLD (country code) is not the same as new gTLD, although new gTLD may also be IDN. IDN ccTLD are usually granted to the existing operator of the ccTLD and is a completely different process than sponsored TLD (usually involving government to support the delegation). ccTLD operator may choose to make it available for public use or not once it's granted e.g. Japan's JPRS has both .jp and .日本 (but .日本 is not available to public)





Surface.microsoft doesn't have access to your cookies at microsoft.com, so can't check whether you've manually overridden region detection on Microsoft websites. Which suggests we won't be checking our inbox at mail.google or shopping at pantry.amazon for similar reasons.

At least, unless Chrome decides to add even more logic for these corporate gTLDs...


All of Microsoft's sites are a mess of redirects. I swear they do it just to fuck with uMatrix users.


That's in the best case. It's worse when a link gets broken or redirects to an irrelevant page. They seem to break a large chunk of links every year or so.


Yup. Nobody at Microsoft who actually believes in the Web seems to have authority to override when some new executive decides microsoft.com ought to be a Wiki now, or a web forum, or blog site, and throws away all the stuff people have bookmarked, and all the stuff that conscientious employees linked making their documents useful.

Half of the HTTP "Too many redirects, gave up" errors I've ever seen in my whole life were from microsoft.com

These days I have less reason to visit microsoft.com, but I recommend looking for (and retaining when you find them) URLs in the form https://aka.ms/ which seems to be curated by somebody who actually respects the idea of URLs and so end up pointing to wherever the content is now, even years after it has become a Wiki of a Blog Post about a KB article with a Word document in it.

I'm assuming it's manually maintained, since I can't imagine any possible automatic system would keep up with the nonsense at microsoft.com, but so far it has worked.


Possibly some one from Bing needs to have a word about how to do redirects properly :-)


That's a bit embarrassing honestly.


>given that no other corporations have their name as a top-level domain.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.google


I stand corrected!


That tends to happen when you make up facts.


Personal attacks will get you banned here. Would you mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and using this site as intended?


Why would you punish someone for acknowledging when they're wrong? All you're doing is discouraging what is actually good, self-aware behavior.

It's extremely easy for humans to make mistakes and have cognitive distortions from information collected over time. Your comment is completely uncalled for.


.google is another example


Maps.google is not real, what a missed opp




Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: