It's official - Google did indeed correctly judge that ICANN would halt corporate attempts to exclusively snatch generic top level domain names for commercial use. The internet overlord, which is charging companies to take control of new suffixes to supplement the established TLDs such as .com, .org and .uk, said (PDF) at a …
If anyone can smell which way the wind is blowing, it's Google
Well, Google does have access to all that search data.
thought it bug's me to say
Google is synonyms with search so much so "to google" "google it" means to search for something.
Did they try to buy .google ?
Its been a long day
I seem to remember they did try to buy .google, and I guess they'll get that. But it's probably in one of the later rounds.
Google still aren't Hoover, and they're desperately using lawyers to try to stop that happening. Lest they lose control of their trademark. Rather like Rolls Royce still send the legal letters out if you call something 'The Rolls Royce of...' It is an interesting questions as to whether ICANN would let Hoover buy .hoover in that case. But I'd imagine they would - they may not be able to defend the trademark, but it's still their name.
After being rather rude about ICANN of late, it's only fair that I applaud this decision. Assuming they actually stick to it. I don't think Amazon should be able to exclusively control .book, or Google .search. Not that I think they need to exist at all, but if they must exist, better they're sensible. Although given the history of generic domains like car.com - this sitll looks like a total waste of money. Google don't need TLDs to rule the internet, they do that through their search and advertising monopolies.
If you're into self-correcting, then the title has an extra 't' and apostrophe. Of course the extra apostrophe could be put to good use in your correction where it's missing from the 'Its [sic] been a long day'.
ICANN need a good slapping
It remains true that these domains should not have been made available this way, this is a colossal ICANN screwup. It doesn't just open the door to massive abuse, it almost compels it, for defence even where there's no malice.
Hard to tell if ICANN see a goldmine or were just too fscking lazy to quickly identify and reserve the most obvious cases - like all the ones Google applied for. They should have been dealt with in weeks before anyone wasted much money on the process.
Re: ICANN need a good slapping
Your (and my, and everyone else's) definition of "wasted" and ICANN's definition of "wasted" are likely entirely different, given that the wasted money ends up in ICANN's bank account.
I still have trouble believing that ICANN is just selling valuable real estate to private companies like that. I can only assume that large amounts of money has gone to personal account to make that decision (as I also assume was the case when they sold .xxx)
.blog is a generic namespace based on a fairly recent neology, and I don't suppose the .cloud domain will be mainly used by meteorologists. Five years ago neither was a generic term, and in ten years time both usages may be quaint.
The point I'm trying to make is that it's impossible to pin language down. Tomorrow's generic terms are either perfectly normal words or meaningless letter sequences today.
mutter, mutter, public interest, mutter, mutter, oh FFS give us your money.
This is nothing, "public interest" will be served by letting people access a service under the exclusive domain, you still won't be able to have your-own.cloud or no-apple-tax-more-secure-than-google.app domain.
From comments on here, the smoke and mirrors have worked. The statement has questions about public interest but no answers, they'll make those up after the domains are sold to highest bidders.
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?
- Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!
- Review Apple takes blade to 13-inch MacBook Pro with Retina display
- Pic iPhone 6 flip tip slips in Aussie's clip: Apple's 'reversible USB' leaks