Feeds

back to article ICANN destroys Google's dotless domain dream

Google's dream of “dotless domains”, already on the receiving end of a firm ”no” from the Internet Architecture Board (IAB), has been killed off by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Dotless domains would allow web addresses like “http://search”, but would be tricky to implement without DNS jiggery …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
Silver badge

re. Refused domains include .AFRICA and .GCC.

Did they give reasons why? Would/did they also refuse ASIA, EUROPE, ...etc? Has anyone applied for ATLANTIS?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: re. Refused domains include .AFRICA and .GCC.

.GCC anyone?

1
1

Re: re. Refused domains include .AFRICA and .GCC.

.asia is a valid domain name already. You too can buy a domain there. It was your typical land grab with cyber squatters and shills asking for protection (sorry, extortion, oops, realy sorry, advance payment) monies for <your domain name.asia> before it launched. US$500 per domain if I recall correctly.

I certainly can't see why .gcc was refused, unless it was requested by somebody other than the FSF. .africa may have been disputed as to whom the "rightful" owner was.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: re. Refused domains include .AFRICA and .GCC.

>.africa may have been disputed as to whom the "rightful" owner was.

Oh great more fuel to add to colonialism caused all our problems for eternity fire.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Makes sense

Considering the quantity of internal dotless addresses put ther, it's better to avoid them.

…of course, I also think it better to avoid completely to add new TLDs, considering how little success previous entrants like .name and .xxx have had, but then I'm not trying to milk the Internet for all it is worth…

2
0
Anonymous Coward

How about search:// ?

Why doesn't google simply implement a new scheme ? They could wrap it up with their - can't recall what it was called but it was sort of binary http - and kill two birds with one stone ...

4
0
Bronze badge

This is most confusing

There are stories about ICANN and stories about Icahn, and I keep getting them mixed up and thinking that the one is the other, with rather silly misunderstandings resulting...

6
0
Bronze badge
Coat

Re: This is most confusing

I did wonder, did he change his name specially d'you think?

1
0
Headmaster

Actually .africa wasn't rejected as such, but there were two applicants for it and one of them was now rejected (presumably the other will get it, although that's not formally decided yet).

The objection to .gcc was due to potential of confusion with Gulf Cooperation Council (the applicant was Goldman Sachs, or technically their fund GCCIX WLL).

1
0
Silver badge

Thank you for that information.

So, Goldman Sachs wants its own TLD ? Doesn't want to mingle with the "common" dot coms ?

Well, I guess there is such a thing as too much money after all.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

I'm sure they can get .lloydblankfeinisathievingbastard in the same way that Bank of America registered brianmoynihansucks.com.

0
0
Silver badge

Google Schmoogle

I can only preume that Google have already managed to determine an appropriate market strategy which would give me them even more dominance, over and above their existing status, hence their request.

I give a huge thumbs up to the ICANN for refusing to kowtow to Google.

Google - They are like a semi rotten fruit, the first bite seems fine but subsequent bites really start to leave a bad aftertaste.

3
0

Are these the domains that cost $185,000 to apply for?

So thats 1,930 x $185,000 =~ $357m (£230m) in the coffers for ICANN. Impressive. Even Gareth Bale would be shocked at those figures.

2
0
Gold badge

Even better, there's no cash back if they chose to reject your domain - so tough luck if it only lasts a few days into the process. Also, where multiple companies have applied for the same one (say .book), they all had to pay ICANN. And for the potential winners, it's like Highlander, there can be only one. I wonder if ICANN will force them to settle disputes at sword-point? Then charge massive pay-per-view fees perhaps?

Finally, for extra yummyness - and this is in no way a conflict of interest or anything (honest!) - even if you didn't enter the process, you have to pay ICANN in order to raise an objection. So if you're an innocent bystander and someone tries to take over a generic word that also happens to be your company or industry name, then you'll have to fork out to ICANN to be allowed to complain. The only concession here, is that the governments are on the advisory board, so for example I think Brazil got to object to .amazon for free.

1
0

Presumably they didn't apply for .chocolatefactory .willywonka or .oompaloompa then?

1
0
Silver badge

Kerching!

So lots of money for ICANN for the application process, now they can look forward to even more money as businesses have to defensively register their domains with another load of suffixes!

Trebles all round!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Dotless domains would allow google to grab “http://search”, and hold onto it like grim death

There fixed that for you

2
0
JDX
Gold badge

Would make combined search/URL bars a bit tricky

Did you mean to search for sausages, or go to http://sausages?

1
0
Anonymous Coward

glad they binned a horrible idea

I've no love lost for ICANN and their money grabbing ideas but I'm glad they dropped this idea. I can't imagine the number of conflicts between internal hostnames and external public domains.

Most organisation have internal websites on their networks addressed by a single dotless name eg. http://intranet

4
0
Bronze badge

and yet...

They're fine with no American company having to add '.us' to identify the country.

How about fairness that reaches the rest of the world?

1
0
This topic is closed for new posts.