|Google May Open Some TLDs To The Public|
| 7:12 pm on Mar 11, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Assuming the company gains control of such top-level domains as .search, .app, .blog, and .cloud, it doesn't seems to want to restrict their use to its own products.Google May Open Some TLDs To The Public [news.cnet.com] |
|Google appears eager to let other organizations use certain top-level domains that it wants to acquire and manage. |
|In a letter sent to ICANN last Thursday, Google Chief Information Officer Ben Fried said the organization should allow closed generic string applications to proceed (PDF). The company believes that an "unfettered process is paramount in opening up the domain name space and increasing innovation in a market that has always been, effectively, stagnant." |
Google also clearly stated that it would expand the use of certain gTLDs beyond its own products:
| 8:33 pm on Mar 11, 2013 (gmt 0)|
What market is stagnant? There is a pretty lively (I would argue TOO lively) market in domains: both registering new ones, and trading old ones.
IN what way is creating more TLDs innovation? Inventing DNS was innovation, this is not.
Given they will be effectively purely privately owned by the likes of Google, any other business using seems to be taking a big risk that the rules may change in nasty ways. I know that I can move a .com or a .co.uk between competing registrars, and there are clear rules about things like trademark disputes. Google running a TLD without oversight cannot offer the same.
| 12:37 am on Mar 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Look how well ".info", ".me", ".mobi", ".tv" etc have caught on.
No matter what you have for domain name, many people will only remember ".com", (I see it with government agencies who are "example.gov" and organizations who are "example.org"... they end up getting a ".com" because that's what people automatically type in the US.
And speaking of that, if one were to become registrar for the ".book" TLD, wouldn't that mean they need to become registrar for ".livre" (for French), ".libro" (for Spanish), ".livro" (Potuguese), ".buch" (German), ".bok" (Swedish), ".kitab" (Azerbaijani)... well, you get the picture.
| 3:23 am on Mar 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
We need these TLDs like we need a .holeinthehead
The downside from buying it from Google is if you were trying to maintain anonymity about the ownership of a network of sites from Google itself then those particular TLDs probably won't appeal to you. However, not knowing if all registrars can see the true site owner instead of the private registration, it could all be moot anyway.
While some of the TLDs may be useful the general population isn't ready for it all and quite often still go to .com even when you have a .net. Most people have no clue about the majority of domain names they even visit because they find the site in search or from an ad and click it and maybe bookmark it but rarely ever type it.
I own a couple of TLDs off the beaten path but I certainly wouldn't launch a serious business with it unless it was something really compelling and easy to use like "discount.book"
| 9:39 am on Mar 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
You'll need to pay with Google checkout and administer it through some yet unreleased Google+ feature!
| 9:39 pm on Mar 12, 2013 (gmt 0)|
"If you give me exclusive control of this resource, I promise to share it with you. The bad guys might not."
Option C: Give nobody exclusive control of said resource.
|if one were to become registrar for the ".book" TLD, wouldn't that mean they need to become registrar for ".livre" (for French), ".libro" (for Spanish), ".livro" (Potuguese), ".buch" (German), ".bok" (Swedish), ".kitab" (Azerbaijani)... |
Silly girl. The entire universe speaks English. Didn't you know that?
Does Azerbaijani really use the Arabic word? Come to think of it, so does a pretty hefty proportion of the planet.
Uneasy speculations about Saudi Arabia snabbling ".kitab" and flatly refusing to let anyone other than hajj-related entities use it. Tough luck, amazon dot entire-continent-of-Asia-and-much-of-Africa, should have seen it coming.