Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Brazil and Peru Dispute .Amazon TLD

Unknown Lamer posted about 2 years ago | from the bad-idea-has-bad-consequences dept.

Government 163

judgecorp writes "Amazon.com could lose the .amazon domain, as Brazil and Peru have disputed the retailer's application to ICANN, backed by other South American governments, who want to protect use of that domain for 'purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome.'"

cancel ×

163 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

It's ok (1)

Spy Handler (822350) | about 2 years ago | (#42057445)

Bezos can register amaz.on and am.azon

lol (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057469)

lol

seriously

lol

the fucking world

lol

Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057481)

Unfortunately, we don't need more TLDs, it's a pain to memorize specialty ones like .amazon. Most people will try .com, .org, or .net first (if they aren't just using a search engine.

Re:Good (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057919)

Actually most people will open up google or use bookmarks, I'd have thought. Personally I'm all for more TLDs, however I'd probably rather we remove domains from domain campers who aren't using them for anything besides domainparking / ads / or attempts to sell.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058429)

Not sure how you can "remove" them though...

the way I see is this change (virtually unlimited number of top domains) will basically "flood" the market with addresses, making "foobar.com" irrelevant if you can buy "my.foobar" or "foobar.amazon".

Personally, I would tell Amazon to to get the "zon" prefix. Ama.zon. Am.zon. Have you visited 'Zon today?

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058533)

IAmA Zon.AMA

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about 2 years ago | (#42057945)

The silliest part about custom TLDs is that because they're so obscure, you have to put "http://" in front of them for people to recognize them in the wild. Replacing "amazon.com" with "http://amazon" is a net increase in number of characters, defeating any benefits that may have come by avoiding the TLD. I guess if you're starting with ".org.uk" or something similar it's neutral, but a lot of countries abbreviate the category part to two characters (.or.jp, .co.uk, etc), making the addition of "http://" still worse.

Unless it's 2002 again and we're suddenly writing out "www." for everything?

Re:Good (3, Informative)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42058077)

"Replacing "amazon.com" with "http://amazon" is a net increase in number of characters"

You need more than that - "amazon" is a (TL) domain, not a host. You'd need something like "http://www.amazon". Just entering "http://amazon" is likely to resolve to the user's local domain, e.g. "amazon.example.com".

Re:Good (1, Troll)

mattventura (1408229) | about 2 years ago | (#42058213)

The blame for this is on certain browser developers (*cough* MS *cough*). There is no technical reason why "amazon" couldn't be a host, but IE stupidly assumes that when you enter a single word, you want to search for it. It won't even resolve local domains. When I use IE I can't type in just "sharepoint" like I should be able to. Instead I have to type "sharepoint.company.com".

Re:Good (5, Insightful)

EvanED (569694) | about 2 years ago | (#42058487)

The blame for this is on certain browser developers (*cough* MS *cough*). There is no technical reason why "amazon" couldn't be a host, but IE stupidly assumes that when you enter a single word, you want to search for it.

Psst... don't look now, but Firefox, Chrome, and Opera all do the same thing. But don't that stop you from following in the /. tradition and singling out MS.

Re:Good (1)

slazzy (864185) | about 2 years ago | (#42058867)

Safari does this now too, it is now the rule rather than the exception...

Re:Good (2)

0123456 (636235) | about 2 years ago | (#42058957)

Safari does this now too, it is now the rule rather than the exception...

Stupidity is contagious.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058555)

Try adding a dot or a slash at the end. It might work. I have some vague memories of dealing with this a few years ago.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058703)

IE isnt doing that. Your DNS client and/or your DNS server are

Re:Good (3, Informative)

egamma (572162) | about 2 years ago | (#42058229)

"Replacing "amazon.com" with "http://amazon" is a net increase in number of characters" You need more than that - "amazon" is a (TL) domain, not a host. You'd need something like "http://www.amazon". Just entering "http://amazon" is likely to resolve to the user's local domain, e.g. "amazon.example.com".

And, to make matters worse, if I have a host called www.amazon.domain.local on my domain, the request will still be routed to that local host!

There are very good reasons to keep fewer top domains.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058943)

Wait, I registered the .local TLD. You can't be having hosts on it without paying me.

Re:Good (1)

Ichijo (607641) | about 2 years ago | (#42058553)

"amazon" is a (TL) domain, not a host.

A hostname is a domain name assigned to a host computer. [wikipedia.org] Therefore, "amazon" can be both.

Re:Good (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42058925)

Really, wikipedia? Ok, I'll play instead of point to the proper RFC(s).

Hostnames may be simple names consisting of a single word or phrase, or they may have appended a domain name, which is a name in a Domain Name System (DNS), separated from the host specific label by a period (dot). In the latter form, the hostname is also called a domain name. -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostname [wikipedia.org]

Note that only in the case of an "example.com" hostname can it also be called a domain name (which should be taken to mean "a hostname within a domain," as opposed to a simple unqualified hostname). Try to connect to http://com/ [com] or http://gov/ [gov] or http://edu/ [edu] or http://net/ [net] and see where it gets you.

Re:Good (1)

rerogo (1839428) | about 2 years ago | (#42059143)

The fact that com, gov, edu, and net do not have A records (that is, they do not point to a specific host) does not mean there is a technical reason they cannot have A records.

Re:Good (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42058981)

When I type amazon.com into a web browser, it assumes I mean www.amazon.com. It would be trivial to expand that with the new tlds. If you type "amazon" assume "www.amazon" which is a host (or would be if the owner of amazon set it up that way).

Re:Good (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42059197)

"When I type amazon.com into a web browser, it assumes I mean www.amazon.com."

No, it doesn't. It goes out to DNS to resolve "amazon.com," and the returned record point to the hosts 72.21.211.176, 72.21.194.1, and 72.21.214.128. Your browser then attempts to do an http get from one of those hosts, and is immediately redirected to www.amazon.com. It's Amazon which is changing it to www.amazon.com, not your browser. Many/most sites do that.

Prove it to yourself - https://twitter.com/ [twitter.com] connects, no www.

Re:Good (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 2 years ago | (#42058967)

Yes, but shop.amazon, shoes.amazon, computers.amazon, etc would all be easy to remember. Or leave out subdomains entirely and just go to "amazon"

Considering that .com, .org, and .net have all sort of flowed together and lost much of their original purpose I don't see that opening up TLDs does anything (long term) except eliminate an essentially arbitrary suffix from domain names.

Stand-By! (1)

A10Mechanic (1056868) | about 2 years ago | (#42057529)

Mega Corporation Money Grab in 3 - 2 - 1. Just in time for the holiday sales rush! I bet this whole thing will jusr go away for X-amount of dollars.

Re:Stand-By! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057613)

Mega Corporation Money Grab in 3 - 2 - 1. Just in time for the holiday sales rush! I bet this whole thing will jusr go away for X-amount of dollars.

How hard would it be for Bezos to say, "Shut up and just take my money!"?

Re:Stand-By! (5, Funny)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42057969)

Well, no. The name Amazon long pre-dates the river, being the name of a mythological tribe of warrier women who removed a breast so they could better shoot a bow. "Amazon" comes from the Greek a-mazos, "without a breast."

The countries in the Amazon River basin have a no more legitimate claim to the domain than does the company. Let them use .amazonriver, if they wish.

Re:Stand-By! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058133)

The countries are older than the company, and will last more time. Let Bezos use .amazoncompany, if he wishes.

Re:Stand-By! (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 2 years ago | (#42058547)

You can assume the country will outlast the company, but it may not. I can tell you if I am typing amazon and expecting a website in response, I am expected Amazon.com. However, I also wouldn't be that lazy :)

Re:Stand-By! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058605)

IBM is older than many of the countries in Europe, there are plenty of European companies older in name than most countries anywhere.

Consider that when you talk about how long nations will last.

Re:Stand-By! (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42059005)

By that (naive? ignorant? stupid?) logic, San Marino [wikipedia.org] has a claim to all DNS names.

Re:Stand-By! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42059153)

That's not funny. It's the truth. The have no claim to the "ENGLISH" spelling of the name.

Portuguese- amazona or Rio Amazonas
Spanish- el Amazonas or la Amazonia

Yep, not even f'ing close to the english language spelling. Switch your official language, then you might have a case.

Re:tragedy of the generics (2)

muon-catalyzed (2483394) | about 2 years ago | (#42058479)

Oh, how I pity those big ass mega corps getting burned over their short sightedness by lifting a used term, Amazon, Apple, Sun.., how unoriginal, how non-authentic, how false, you can't even have a Wikipedia page without some serious elbowing and constant clashes, oh poor ones, cry us an amazon.

Should have used location-based domains (3, Insightful)

concealment (2447304) | about 2 years ago | (#42057555)

Back in the day, there was some concern over the fact that domain names are universal. Someone wanting Amazon in the US for example has different rights than someone wanting Amazon in Brazil. Many people suggested that we go to location-based domains.

Amazon has mostly followed this model. You order from Amazon.de if you're in Switzerland, or Amazon.co.uk if you like toast with your Earl Grey.

Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com, even though there is a region, at least one bookstore [salon.com] , and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?

Re:Should have used location-based domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057737)

The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization, but expanded to take advantage of locations.

So top-down from continent to country to maybe region for special cases, and then domain TYPE before domain and sub-domains, then the usual directories and filenames.
Shortcircuiting COULD be used, but discouraged since location-detection is usually terrible. (I live 100s of miles away from where I am supposed to be, for example)
Something like eu.uk.scotland.amazon.shop/crap.html?goesHere

There would need to be a huge amount of re-organization though, which is why it looks painful to look at as people used to this awful DNS we have now.
Quite simply, it won't happen, the web is too craphuge to change.
The entire thing would need to be redone from scratch as something else.
The web should just become the scrublands of information services and we should transition to something better and more official.
The web was doomed from the start. And it will continue to be when it is in control of the idiots over at ICANN.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 years ago | (#42057903)

The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization

I'm looking forward to the new alt domain.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (3, Funny)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 years ago | (#42058233)

Personally, I'm looking forward to .corn. I would love to get www.amazon.corn, www.google.corn, www.apple.corn, etc.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (2)

Megane (129182) | about 2 years ago | (#42058267)

And the ever popular jimmy.crack.corn! (But I really don't care.)

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

msauve (701917) | about 2 years ago | (#42058477)

I want the www TLD. Then I could have URIs like "http://www.example.com.com.example.www//http://"

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#42058073)

The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization

AOL tried that.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42059017)

"The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization,..."

I second that.

alt.cows.moo.moo.moo is much more concise and cannot be confused with some butcher's site.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 years ago | (#42057839)

You order from Amazon.de if you're in Switzerland

Why not amazon.ch?

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

compro01 (777531) | about 2 years ago | (#42057929)

Amazon.ch redirects to amazon.de. Not sure why, population possibly.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

mpe (36238) | about 2 years ago | (#42059095)

Amazon.ch redirects to amazon.de. Not sure why, population possibly.

Though the whole lot are really amazon.lu anyway.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (2)

firewrought (36952) | about 2 years ago | (#42057985)

Back in the day, there was some concern over the fact that domain names are universal. Someone wanting Amazon in the US for example has different rights than someone wanting Amazon in Brazil. Many people suggested that we go to location-based domains.

Not location-based, but country-based... if we had it to do over again, ccTLD's would be the way to go. That clearly "silos" trademark disputes and numerous other legal issues to each country's respective governing laws. You might make an exception for the root DNS servers and other ICANN-designated entities, but the principal would be the same: the TLD identifies the legal authority for the underlying names.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#42058289)

And prohibiting people from using other countries' domains unless you do business or have some formal relationship to the location? I can live with that. I'm tired of seeing Columbia, Tonga, Cocos Islands, and Greenland capitalizing on their TLD. It's a bit silly.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42059137)

Tuvalu is the worst.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

gstoddart (321705) | about 2 years ago | (#42059245)

I'm not tired of it .. I use it as a way to know which ones to avoid. Anybody using any of those TLDs becomes a site I won't visit since I just assume they're shady.

And all of those things like bit.ly? Well, since I can't tell what the fscking URL is, I'm not following it.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058433)

Maybe this approach should be re-revisited for domain names in general. Is it fair that one person gets amazon.com?

If only we had some way of efficiently allocating scarce goods to whomever values them the most.

Re:Should have used location-based domains (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42058913)

The .com domain was created by the US Department of Defense, and has been under US control ever since. The US registrar chose to make it a generic domain allowing international registrants early on, and that turned out to be a good decision, because a lot of foreign and multinational companies chose to register under it. But openness to foreign registrants shouldn't give other nations legal claims on the TLD. The .com domain is still a US-owned and administered domain.

If you want a location based domain, you're free to get one. But other nations have chosen to transform their TLDs into generic TLDs as well, like ".to", ".ly", and ".cc".

.com ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057571)

Well then, shouldn't they have an Amazon.org or an Amazon.gov or something like that?

If it's public interest, it's not really a .com, is it?

Re:.com ? (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | about 2 years ago | (#42057619)

No, its *.amazon (the TLD is in question, not the domain name itself)

Re:.com ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057625)

.gov is for the American government, don't ask me why we aren't using .us or .gov.us for that...

Re:.com ? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#42057709)

.gov is for the American government, don't ask me why we aren't using .us or .gov.us for that...

Because .gov predates the geographical domains like .us.

Re:.com ? (2)

cpghost (719344) | about 2 years ago | (#42057905)

Because .gov predates the geographical domains like .us.

That's the reason. Yet... considering how the US Gov't thinks US laws apply worldwide (DMCA e.g.), it is only fitting that they own .gov at the gTLD and not ccTLD level.

Re:.com ? (1)

hpa (7948) | about 2 years ago | (#42058607)

They were introduced at the same time, in the same RFC... but the bottom line is that it started out as an exclusively U.S. network, and one with a military bent at that (ever wondered by it is not .mil.gov?!) At this point it's a permanent quirk.

Re:.com ? (1)

DragonWriter (970822) | about 2 years ago | (#42058961)

Because .gov predates the geographical domains like .us.

They were introduced at the same time, in the same RFC...

They were described in the same RFC, but .gov was established at that time and .us was not. Specifically, in RFC 920 [ietf.org] , the following TLDs domains are identified as established with specific administrators and agents: ARPA (temporary, for existing ARPA-Internet sites pending transition to new TLDs), GOV, EDU, COM, MIL, and ORG.

Additionally, the following categories of domains were described as being available, but having no instances established: countries (identified by the ISO-standard two-letter english country codes—which would include US), and multiorganizations.

Re:.com ? (1)

kenorland (2691677) | about 2 years ago | (#42059037)

.gov is for the American government, don't ask me why we aren't using .us or .gov.us for that...

Because the US Department of Defense created the ARPAnet/Internet and created domains for the only organizations allowed on it: US COMpanies, US GOVernment, US EDUcational institutions, US MILitary, US NETwork infrastructure, and other US ORGanizations.

The country TLDs came much later. When they appeared, US companies (including most multinationals) continued to register under COM and the US government continued to register under GOV. Eventually, all the restrictions on US TLDs were lifted, except for GOV, EDU, and MIL. All these gTLDs remain under US jurisdiction, however, just like FR and DE are French and German TLDs.

Re:.com ? (1)

John Napkintosh (140126) | about 2 years ago | (#42057629)

Should the United Kingdom be told to use uk.gov instead of .uk? Et al.

Re:.com ? (1)

omnichad (1198475) | about 2 years ago | (#42058311)

They use .gov.uk

Re:.com ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057635)

You didn't even manage to read the headline before commenting?

Re:.com ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057955)

Why bother? It's more important to get your comment in first than have it be meaningful or correct.

The whole rest of the discussion will replies to "Re:.com ?".

Re:.com ? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057751)

No, Amazon.com wants to buy the .amazon (see the dot?) TLD. Brazil and Peru do not want them to because there's a forest by that name that predates Amazon.com by a few millenia at the very least. .gov and .com are owned by the US government (which only serves to cause confusion, each country should, IMO, have a .xy and then be free to create whatever they want inside their .xy, that'd also make it more clear that if your domain is legally taken down country xy is responsible), so if there was an amazon.gov it'd be amazon.gov.br or amazon.gov.pe.

ICANN is creating more TLDs to make more money. It's bullshit and shouldn't be happening, but they have too much power for their own good and don't answer to anyone who cares. Just in case you think of taking them seriously, they wanted to use a Flash game to decide who gets what.

PR Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057653)

This is a great PR opportunity for Amazon.com. Amazon.com could own the TLD and put legal guarantees in place so that any site dedicated to "...public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome..." could get a free domain with that TLD. Hell, Amazon.com could even offer to provide free hosting for any of those sites.

Re:PR Opportunity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057981)

could even offer to provide 'free' hosting for any of those sites.

In exchange for recycling some trees to make packaging!

TLD's make no sense unless your a mega-corp.. (3, Insightful)

richardoz (529837) | about 2 years ago | (#42057679)

It's just another way to further entrench branding to the point that the Internet will be "owned" (in a marketing way) by 4 or 5 companies.

Re:TLD's make no sense unless your a mega-corp.. (1)

wiedzmin (1269816) | about 2 years ago | (#42058033)

They don't even make sense if you are a mega-corp. Seriously, who cares if it's "kindle.amazon.com" or just "kindle.amazon"? The latter looks gimped anyways.

FAILzORS. (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057695)

all over AMerica

This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* (2)

davidwr (791652) | about 2 years ago | (#42057795)

The other half will, of course, be Amazon, Inc. objecting to any South American entity using .amazon for any purpose but to drive traffic to Amazon, Inc.

----

Personally, I think the whole TLD thing would've gone a lot better if no new .TLDs were created save those assigned as country-codes, codes for multinational entities like the UN or the European Union, or domains needed for purely technical purposes like .ARPA.

Alas, money and politics rule the day.

Re:This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* (1)

Megane (129182) | about 2 years ago | (#42057949)

Forget all the partisan politics stuff, I think the best reason for Texas to secede is the cool ".tx" domain name they would get.

Re:This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about 2 years ago | (#42059221)

With regional DNS, it would still be viable for Brazil to run .amazon internally and redirect all internal .amazon traffic there, and not honor .amazon as applied by the international .amazon. If push comes to shove, I can see something like that happening, and then DNS will fragment and we'll have to go back to typing in IP addresses about the time we finally move to IPv6. Have fun with that.

Mathematicians (2)

hemo_jr (1122113) | about 2 years ago | (#42057825)

In related news, big number mathematicians are considering whether to dispute the .google TLD. Many consider the corporation to be moving in on their turf and want to reserve the domain for the public and insomniac sheep counters.

Re:Mathematicians (2)

hemo_jr (1122113) | about 2 years ago | (#42057887)

Make that immortal insomniac sheep counters.

Themyscira (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42057925)

Wonder Woman and several of her sisters have lodged their own complaints as they wish for the .amazon domain to be used to spread awareness of their cultural and national information.

Re:Themyscira (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058745)

I'd love to eat her sweet pussy!

Re:Mathematicians (5, Funny)

OzPeter (195038) | about 2 years ago | (#42058007)

In related news, big number mathematicians are considering whether to dispute the .google TLD.

Which help sort out the stupid mathematicians from the ones that know what a googol is.

Re:Mathematicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058031)

Well it looks like they need to talk to the English majors because they should be registering .googol instead.

In other news... (5, Funny)

srussia (884021) | about 2 years ago | (#42057861)

Pfizer and GlaxoSmithKline have expressed no interest whatsoever in the .microsoft TLD.

Plenty of fail to go around (2)

Just Some Guy (3352) | about 2 years ago | (#42057889)

First, Amazon owning ".amazon" is a stupid idea. Really, guys: that's just dumb. Stop it.

Second, were Brazil and Peru even remotely interested in ".amazon" before Amazon tried to create it, or is that a convenient excuse to coerce Amazon to ask their blessing (presumably for a modest compensatory donation)? I don't recall hearing of their grand plans for that TLD before today.

Re:Plenty of fail to go around (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#42057961)

To be fair, if such a TLD existed and access of it was loosely given out, it would serve as a worrying vector for phishing and other scams.

I agree I would be rather curious to hear the sequence of events that lead to this dispute.

Re:Plenty of fail to go around (1)

Eevee (535658) | about 2 years ago | (#42058039)

Does that matter if they currently have plans or not? Now is the time to fight to establish possession, because if the company gets hold of .amazon, it will be next to impossible to get it back.

Re:Plenty of fail to go around (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058519)

because if the company gets hold of .amazon, it will be next to impossible to get it back.

It's a publicly traded company. If you want the assets, buy the company. Even with companies the size of Amazon, it has happened before.

Prior Art (1)

Jahta (1141213) | about 2 years ago | (#42057913)

Well demonstrating prior art shouldn't be difficult! :-)

$350 million so far? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#42058069)

Ok, this is from a link in the original article.. but this bit REALLY jumped out at me.

ICANN has seen over $350 million come in as a result of the process, but said that covered the cost of dealing with the whole process.

I am really curious, what kind of 'process' they are using that eats nearly a quarter of a billion dollars just to decide on some new gTLDs. It isn't technological in nature.....

Re:$350 million so far? (1)

js33 (1077193) | about 2 years ago | (#42058271)

ICANN has seen over $350 million come in as a result of the process

That should tell you right there it's all about the money.

but said that covered the cost of dealing with the whole process.

So it went into the pockets of a bunch of connected buddies and well-paid consultants as usual. They had control of a system and found a way to make money off it, so they went for it. The whole "process" is nothing but a farce.

Re:$350 million so far? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#42058357)

Ah, consultants. That would do it. I was going to guess hookers and blow...

Re:$350 million so far? (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 2 years ago | (#42058675)

hookers and blow...

Temporary Relationship Consultants and Pharmaceutical Consultants you mean?

Re:$350 million so far? (1)

jythie (914043) | about 2 years ago | (#42058795)

Ah yes, important for any high level process discussion in order to smooth negotiations...

Re:$350 million so far? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058493)

I suspect the 'process' involved a lot of hookers and blow.

Get rid of ICANN (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058089)

Why aren't the ISP uniting the replace the totally corrupt ICANN, by switching DNS to a better organization?

It's clear that they are violating the trust put in them to monetize public goods for their personal profit.

Support (1)

Murdoch5 (1563847) | about 2 years ago | (#42058097)

I actually support that, we should have more awareness of the amazon. Amazon the company can just use Am or Zon or something.

Just wondering... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058121)

Which country am I beholden to if I order com.amazon?

Just create Continental TLD's and be done with it (1)

future assassin (639396) | about 2 years ago | (#42058245)

. Even though I do enjoy a couple of my .xxx domains creating 100's of domains is useless and will alienate users. Who the hell would want to use or type in yourfoodstore.amazon?

They only want to protect the Amazon Basin (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058295)

... which is why the governments in that area have been allowing so much logging and deforestation.

This is exactly what was predicted (5, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | about 2 years ago | (#42058309)

When ICANN proposed this new TLD concept, this is exactly what people were saying would happen. The entire point of the original domain name system was that it was hierarchical, so that terms like "amazon," which were ambiguous, were not in contention. It is clear that amazon.com is a commercial company while amazon.pe is the river in Peru. If you give one trademark holder the entire hierarchy, the system falls apart.

At the risk of being trollish by linking to my own Slashdot comment:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2782577&cid=39661791 [slashdot.org]

Re:This is exactly what was predicted (2)

hpa (7948) | about 2 years ago | (#42058659)

Indeed, and the Amazon Cooperation Treaty Organization can be amazon.int (which is what the .int domain is for, although for some bizarre reason the biggest treaty organization of them all, the United Nations, is at un.org rather than un.int. Not to mention that having its own ISO 3166-1 code and a number of suborganizations a .un top-level domain would actually make sense.)

Re:This is exactly what was predicted (1)

pla (258480) | about 2 years ago | (#42059209)

although for some bizarre reason the biggest treaty organization of them all, the United Nations, is at un.org rather than un.int

Offhand, I'd guess they did that for the same reason that everyone registers the ".com" version of their name, if available - Because, given a domain name, people will completely forget the TLD and try, in order, com, then org, then net, then just ask Google for the damned thing.

Hell, I've used the internet since that meant using Mosaic, and worked in IT for over 15 years, and I have not ever gone to a ".int" domain knowingly (though I've probably hit one or two through Google searches and didn't notice).

Re:This is exactly what was predicted (1)

aicrules (819392) | about 2 years ago | (#42058707)

I do not find your link trollish. Just a mild "i told you so"

Pentium, not 586 (1)

Cajun Hell (725246) | about 2 years ago | (#42058367)

Oh, Bezos. Just a few years before you formed your company, did not Intel show that you should make up a new word, rather than use a number, or as anyone would assume was clearly implied, use an existing word?

And it's the name of a place? I can cut you some slack on that; nobody ever knows for sure that they'll ever hit the big time and become a world power. Nevertheless, you made it. Good for you, but there are consequences.

Now you must face a difficult decision: are you going to rename your company to Amazathalon, or are you going to sit on your laurels while I take the name and form a new business to eat your lunch?

Re:Pentium, not 586 (1)

Radak (126696) | about 2 years ago | (#42059123)

Oh, Bezos. Just a few years before you formed your company, did not Intel show that you should make up a new word, rather than use a number, or as anyone would assume was clearly implied, use an existing word?

Actually, he did make up a new word. The company was originally going to be called Cadabra.com. How many shares of AMZN do you want to bet the company would have fared much poorer with that name?

And it's the name of a place?

My understanding is that he went with the name Amazon because the Amazon river moves the largest amount of water of any river in the world and he wanted to give people the impression that his company would do the same with the printed words.

Say what you wish about the TLD debate, but Bezos clearly picked an apropos name that helped his company's success immensely.

Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (4, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 years ago | (#42058475)

not only that (-1)

frovingslosh (582462) | about 2 years ago | (#42058729)

The truck driving dyke across the street and some of her "girl friends" nave a gripe about that TLD too.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?