Brazil and Peru Dispute .Amazon TLD

It's ok by Spy+Handler · 2012-11-21 05:44 · Score: 1

Bezos can register amaz.on and am.azon

Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:47 · Score: 0

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:18 · Score: 1

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 by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-21 06:21 · Score: 5, Interesting

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?

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Good by msauve · 2012-11-21 06:29 · Score: 3, Informative

"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".

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Good by mattventura · 2012-11-21 06:38 · Score: 1, Troll

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 by egamma · 2012-11-21 06:39 · Score: 3, Informative

"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.

--
Battlemaster--Game with friends in medival realms
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:54 · Score: 0

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 by EvanED · 2012-11-21 06:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:03 · Score: 0

IAmA Zon.AMA
Re:Good by Ichijo · 2012-11-21 07:05 · Score: 1

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

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

--
Any sufficiently unpopular but cohesive argument is indistinguishable from trolling.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:05 · Score: 0

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:16 · Score: 0

IE isnt doing that. Your DNS client and/or your DNS server are
Re:Good by slazzy · 2012-11-21 07:29 · Score: 1

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

--
Website Just Down For Me? Find out
Re:Good by msauve · 2012-11-21 07:33 · Score: 1

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

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/ or http://gov/ or http://edu/ or http://net/ and see where it gets you.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:34 · Score: 0

Wait, I registered the .local TLD. You can't be having hosts on it without paying me.
Re:Good by 0123456 · 2012-11-21 07:35 · Score: 2

Safari does this now too, it is now the rule rather than the exception...
Stupidity is contagious.
Re:Good by Immerman · 2012-11-21 07:36 · Score: 1

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.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Good by AK+Marc · 2012-11-21 07:37 · Score: 1

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).

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Good by rerogo · 2012-11-21 07:51 · Score: 1

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 by msauve · 2012-11-21 07:55 · Score: 1

"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/ connects, no www.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

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.
Psst...don't look now, but Firefox at least follows the standards and does not search if the single word actually resolves to a host name. But don't let that stop you from not understanding how computers really work.
I just typed "www" in the address bar of FF 13 and it correctly brought up my company's main webpage. Why? Because the resolver on my PC is set to automatically search our own domain when looking up a hostname. FF only goes to web search if the resolver fails to return an IP address.
Re:Good by houghi · 2012-11-21 08:05 · Score: 1

Unless it's 2002 again and we're suddenly writing out "www." for everything?
There are many people who do that. Even companies and IT people. Where I work our website www.example.com is available to see through our firewall, but not the IDENTICAL example.com one. Many sites still forward example.com to www.example.com for some reason.
Many people when I spell out a website like here.example.com will start typing http://www./ not only in their browser, but on google.
People tell me that their email has no spaces and is all lowercase.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:05 · Score: 0

"amazon" is not a fully qualified domain name and that makes it ambiguous. Writing "amazon." would distinguish it from a host name under one of the local domain suffixes.
IMHO the new TLDs should never have been allowed to operate as anything but registries for the public, delegation-only. Single-part domains break a lot of things. Since they're all registered directly in the root zone, there's also no diversity, no choice among registries or registrars. At least one level of indirection would have been very advisable.
Re:Good by EvanED · 2012-11-21 08:10 · Score: 1

I just typed "www" in the address bar of FF 13 and it correctly brought up my company's main webpage. Why? Because the resolver on my PC is set to automatically search our own domain when looking up a hostname. FF only goes to web search if the resolver fails to return an IP address.
Meanwhile, I tried 'com'. "http://com" resolves correctly, but entering just "com" does a search.
I'm not enough of a networking guy to explain the difference. Anyone want to comment?
Re:Good by Samantha+Wright · 2012-11-21 08:13 · Score: 1

Fun trivia fact: you can include underscores, hyphens, and periods in e-mail addresses, and the RFCs don't prohibit case-sensitivity. In fact, you can even include spaces provided you wrap it in quotation marks. Wikipedia gives this exciting example: "very.(),:;[]\".VERY.\"very@\\ \"very\".unusual"@strange.example.com

--
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Re:Good by fa2k · 2012-11-21 08:18 · Score: 1

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.
Firefox appears to correctly resolve foo to foo.example.com when it's in the domain provided by DHCP (on Windows & Linux).
Re:Good by fa2k · 2012-11-21 08:20 · Score: 1

(and when it gets an NXDOMAIN , it does a google search)
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:37 · Score: 0

To the everyday user only one question matters "is foo.bar a legitimate domain for a bar?" i.e. did foo have to go through some process to prove it is a bar before getting the domain, or did they just pay $10, entered some random contact info and got the domain?
I propose that we should simply have two classes of TLDs "free for all" and "certified," and same for ccTLDs. Domains in certified TLDs / ccTLDs must be strictly approved by that TLD's owners. Then browsers (or even OS's) can use a warning system similar to SSL certificates, if I type in http://foo.freeforalltld, the browser looks up the TLD freeforalltld, determines it's not a certified TLD and issues a warning "foo.freeforalltld is not a verified domain, reject / accept / always accept."
Re:Good by msauve · 2012-11-21 08:52 · Score: 1

Perhaps you don't consider it a "technical reason," but the fact is that it makes collisions, and therefor problems, very likely if using domain searchs (common in enterprises). Try using a rooted FQDN in your apps. Some work, some break. Consider the case where an organization has named its servers after rivers - "amazon" is likely to get resolved locally. Read RFC1535 and RFC1536 ("A name containing no dots can be appended with the searchlist right away"). Go ahead, name your servers after popular websites (www.slashdot.com.example.org, www.google.com.example.org,) , and let the fun begin.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Good by EvanED · 2012-11-21 10:02 · Score: 1

Hmm, I think I may have figured it out. I think that the browsers are adding an implicit .com at the end. So CNet got its hands on com.com, and when I type "http://com" in, it tries adding a .com to get http://com.com/ which then redirects to cnet.
So I think my previous test wasn't working the way I expected. Now that said, I still don't know what the difference is with what IE does -- I just tried typing 'www' into IE, and it took me to my domain's www host, and did not do a search.
Re:Good by murdocj · 2012-11-21 10:14 · Score: 1

Apparently so is Slashthink
Re:Good by rerogo · 2012-11-21 10:36 · Score: 1

That's a good reason why they shouldn't resolve. I think I had misinterpreted your previous comments to mean that they couldn't resolve.
Re:Good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 10:48 · Score: 0

Not sure how you can "remove" them though...
A slug to the cerebellum can work wonders.
Re:Good by icebraining · 2012-11-21 12:26 · Score: 1

Uh, no. If you write 'amazon.com' in your browser and the domain has an A record, it'll resolve directly. You don't need any alias - you don't even need to have a 'www.' subdomain configured.

--
Dilbert RSS feed
Re:Good by xaxa · 2012-11-21 13:07 · Score: 1

http://ws/ should work (though it's only a redirect), so try typing things like ws or ws. in your address bar.
Re:Good by xaxa · 2012-11-21 13:09 · Score: 1

Indeed, ws has an A record.
dig -t A ws.
; > DiG 9.8.1-P1 > -t A ws. ;; global options: +cmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER
Re:Good by shutdown+-p+now · 2012-11-21 13:27 · Score: 1

Psst...don't look now, but Firefox at least follows the standards and does not search if the single word actually resolves to a host name.

So does IE. Is there any browser that doesn't try to resolve input that matches a valid domain name before treating it as a search string?
Re:Good by msauve · 2012-11-21 14:02 · Score: 1

My comment came from the assumption that Amazon's DNS admin would be competent, so wouldn't try to assign an A record to the TLD, hence the requirement for a "dotted" FQDN.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Good by Golddess · 2012-11-21 16:30 · Score: 1

What do brain slugs have to do with removing domain squatters?

--
"I'm not sure I like the fugnutish tone you used in your post!" -RogL (608926)-
Re:Good by Fjandr · 2012-11-22 09:22 · Score: 1

Automatic redirection from "domain.tld" to "www.domain.tld" has always annoyed me. In fact, I do the exact opposite on any sites I run by removing any instance of "www," even those typed directly in by someone coming to the site.
Actually, even more annoying are those sites which don't bother with redirection and simply don't load at all via "domain.tld."

Stand-By! by A10Mechanic · 2012-11-21 05:50 · Score: 1

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! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:56 · Score: 0

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! by msauve · 2012-11-21 06:21 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Stand-By! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:33 · Score: 0

The countries are older than the company, and will last more time. Let Bezos use .amazoncompany, if he wishes.
Re:Stand-By! by aicrules · 2012-11-21 07:04 · Score: 1

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! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:09 · Score: 1

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! by msauve · 2012-11-21 07:39 · Score: 1

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

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Stand-By! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:52 · Score: 1

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:Stand-By! by Patch86 · 2012-11-21 08:35 · Score: 1

Remember that the Amazon is not a country- it's a river and a rain forest. Barring a global calamity, the river will definitely outlast the internet shopping company.
Re:Stand-By! by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-21 09:32 · Score: 1

depends on if we ever leave this planet and get a hold of FTL, if traveling between stars ever takes less then a few months than we may well end up with companies that straddle galaxies in which case a company outliving a river is not impossible.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Re:Stand-By! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 13:19 · Score: 0

> Remember that the Amazon is not a country- it's a river and
It's not just a river. It is THE river. All other ones are merely streams in comparison.
Re:Stand-By! by Tom · 2012-11-21 23:17 · Score: 1

By that logic, amazon.com should use .amazoncompany, if they wish.

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
Re:Stand-By! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 23:48 · Score: 0

or .amazoncom, for short.

Should have used location-based domains by concealment · 2012-11-21 05:52 · Score: 3, Insightful

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, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?

Re:Should have used location-based domains by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:05 · Score: 0

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 by Megane · 2012-11-21 06:12 · Score: 1

You order from Amazon.de if you're in Switzerland
Why not amazon.ch?

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Should have used location-based domains by Megane · 2012-11-21 06:17 · Score: 1

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.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Should have used location-based domains by compro01 · 2012-11-21 06:19 · Score: 1

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

--
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
Re:Should have used location-based domains by firewrought · 2012-11-21 06:23 · Score: 2

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.

--
-1, Too Many Layers Of Abstraction
Re:Should have used location-based domains by wiedzmin · 2012-11-21 06:29 · Score: 1

The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization
AOL tried that.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by oodaloop · 2012-11-21 06:39 · Score: 3, Funny

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

--
Tic-Tac-Toe, Global Thermonuclear War, and relationships all have the same winning move.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by Megane · 2012-11-21 06:42 · Score: 2

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

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:Should have used location-based domains by omnichad · 2012-11-21 06:43 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:55 · Score: 0

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 by msauve · 2012-11-21 06:58 · Score: 1

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

--
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Re:Should have used location-based domains by kenorland · 2012-11-21 07:33 · Score: 1

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".
Re:Should have used location-based domains by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:40 · Score: 0

"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 by mpe · 2012-11-21 07:48 · Score: 1

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 by AK+Marc · 2012-11-21 07:50 · Score: 1

Tuvalu is the worst.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:Should have used location-based domains by gstoddart · 2012-11-21 08:00 · Score: 1

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.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by TubeSteak · 2012-11-21 08:00 · Score: 2

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, and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?
The region got its name after a Spanish explorer sailed up the Amazon river and got his ass kicked by a tribe whom he mistakenly thought were all women.
The Spaniard went back home and told his story to the Holy Roman Emporer, who then decreed the river be called "Amazonas".
Greek mythology > Amazon River > bookstore in Minnesota > Amazon.com
Since Greek mythology can't really call dibs, I'd give this one to Brazil and Peru.

--
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Re:Should have used location-based domains by EdIII · 2012-11-21 08:15 · Score: 1

If there was a tribe of warrior women, I'm thinking they would have taken the domain already.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by omnichad · 2012-11-21 08:43 · Score: 1

Anybody using any of those TLDs becomes a site I won't visit since I just assume they're shady.
You mean like Goo.gl (Google)? T.co (Twitter)?
Re:Should have used location-based domains by gstoddart · 2012-11-21 08:51 · Score: 1

You mean like Goo.gl (Google)? T.co (Twitter)?
Are those actually real? I've never seen them, and I wouldn't follow a link like that -- I would assume it's bogus. Since I have no idea where .gl is, I wouldn't click on that link.
If I want google, I will go to google.com, permutations of that will be assumed to be fraudulent, pointless, or wrong.
Nor would I click on bun.gl, fon.dl, stup.id, wank.er or any of these ones which try to be overly clever with a TLD from somewhere else.

--
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by omnichad · 2012-11-21 09:02 · Score: 1

Google uses goo.gl as their own preferred url shortener, and t.co is Twitter's preferred url shortener. Both use these regularly.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by ShogunTux · 2012-11-21 09:12 · Score: 1

Phishing sites should totally be pushing to get the .con domain. Completely appropriate and descriptive.
Heck, it's even a reasonable typo to make as well (at least on QWERTY).
Re:Should have used location-based domains by StripedCow · 2012-11-21 09:26 · Score: 1

Why not:
amazon.bookstore
amazon.warrior-women
amazon.river
...
apple.computer
apple.grocerystore
apple.musiclabel

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by StripedCow · 2012-11-21 09:28 · Score: 1

The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization...
Meh, DNS lookups should be replaced by simple google searches altogether.
Who uses the url bar anyway?

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by DragonWriter · 2012-11-21 11:02 · Score: 1

Since I have no idea where .gl is, I wouldn't click on that link.
Now you know.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 12:37 · Score: 0

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.
Sometimes one living elsewhere utilizes the alternative versions of Amazon for the purpose of obtaining things that are difficult or impossible to get locally. International shipping is expensive, but sometimes getting the better release is worthwhile. European DVDs are rarely region coded (not that this is a problem). They actually did include some tea with my order.
Re:Should have used location-based domains by Fjandr · 2012-11-22 09:32 · Score: 1

But, but, that's unfair and discriminatory!

.com ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:53 · Score: 0

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 ? by sanosuke001 · 2012-11-21 05:57 · Score: 1

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

--
-SaNo

Re:.com ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:57 · Score: 0

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

Re:.com ? by John+Napkintosh · 2012-11-21 05:58 · Score: 1

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

--

Long signatures suck.

Re:.com ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:58 · Score: 1

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

PR Opportunity by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 05:59 · Score: 0

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:22 · Score: 0

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.. by richardoz · 2012-11-21 06:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

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.

--
All the worlds indeed a .sig, and we are mearly players..

Re:TLD's make no sense unless your a mega-corp.. by wiedzmin · 2012-11-21 06:26 · Score: 1

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.

--
Bow before me, for I am root.
Re:TLD's make no sense unless your a mega-corp.. by Tom · 2012-11-21 23:21 · Score: 1

Exactly. We are moving towards a system where your size and financial power determines how "important" you are. Not cultural values, contributions to society, or other real-world factors. It's sickening, really.
But the real evil part is that a lot of the big companies probably did these grabs for purely legal reasons - defending their trademarks. I would be surprised if anyone at Amazon thinks that germany.amazon is preferable to amazon.de for their local online shop. For internal use, you can already use whatever TLD you want. So where's the profit?

--
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org

Re:.com ? by DragonWriter · 2012-11-21 06:04 · Score: 1

.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 ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:06 · Score: 1

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.

This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* by davidwr · 2012-11-21 06:09 · Score: 2

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.

--
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.

Re:This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* by Megane · 2012-11-21 06:21 · Score: 1

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

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* by AK+Marc · 2012-11-21 07:57 · Score: 1

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.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re:This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-21 09:49 · Score: 1

no. breaking DNS and making people switch to IPv6 would be a pain in the ass. what we should do is use moving to IPv6 as an exuse to go to contry code based tdl's. then split the country codes up into subdomains of com mill gov org net edu or their lingual equvilents for for non english speaking countries. and let people keep using the currents sytem but only on IPv4.

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

Mathematicians by hemo_jr · 2012-11-21 06:11 · Score: 2

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 by hemo_jr · 2012-11-21 06:15 · Score: 2

Make that immortal insomniac sheep counters.
Re:Mathematicians by OzPeter · 2012-11-21 06:25 · Score: 5, Funny

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.

--
I am Slashdot. Are you Slashdot as well?
Re:Mathematicians by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:26 · Score: 0

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

In other news... by srussia · 2012-11-21 06:13 · Score: 5, Funny

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

--
Set your phasers on "funky"!

Plenty of fail to go around by Just+Some+Guy · 2012-11-21 06:16 · Score: 2

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.

--
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?

Re:Plenty of fail to go around by jythie · 2012-11-21 06:21 · Score: 1

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 by Eevee · 2012-11-21 06:26 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:01 · Score: 0

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.
Re:Plenty of fail to go around by neonKow · 2012-11-21 08:35 · Score: 1

That's stupid. You can force a company to do your bidding by buying it . . . in theory, but stopping it in the courts is through other arbitration is obviously more practical.
Re:Plenty of fail to go around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 08:49 · Score: 0

If Brazil is in it, money won't help. You'd need at least US$ 100M on that bribe, that's way too much. Or you'd need to build and host a _very_ large datacenter in Brazil, and move a lot of your worldwide business to it (which will cost about the same).
Re:Plenty of fail to go around by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-22 07:40 · Score: 0

"purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome" BS. this is about commercial exploitation, rain-forest destruction, agribusiness promotion - follow the money, especially in Brazil

Re:.com ? by cpghost · 2012-11-21 06:17 · Score: 2

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.

--
cpghost at Cordula's Web.

Prior Art by Jahta · 2012-11-21 06:18 · Score: 1

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

Re:Prior Art by lister+king+of+smeg · 2012-11-21 09:53 · Score: 1

prior art is for patents. this is about use of a new tdl

--
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.

Themyscira by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:18 · Score: 0

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:.com ? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:21 · Score: 0

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 ?".

$350 million so far? by jythie · 2012-11-21 06:28 · Score: 1

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? by js33 · 2012-11-21 06:42 · Score: 1

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? by jythie · 2012-11-21 06:50 · Score: 1

Ah, consultants. That would do it. I was going to guess hookers and blow...
Re:$350 million so far? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 07:00 · Score: 0

I suspect the 'process' involved a lot of hookers and blow.
Re:$350 million so far? by aicrules · 2012-11-21 07:13 · Score: 1

hookers and blow...
Temporary Relationship Consultants and Pharmaceutical Consultants you mean?
Re:$350 million so far? by jythie · 2012-11-21 07:23 · Score: 1

Ah yes, important for any high level process discussion in order to smooth negotiations...
Re:$350 million so far? by AK+Marc · 2012-11-21 08:06 · Score: 1

Aren't hookers just sex-consultants?

--
Learn to love Alaska

Get rid of ICANN by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:30 · Score: 1

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.

Re:Get rid of ICANN by someones · 2012-11-21 08:30 · Score: 1

this!

Support by Murdoch5 · 2012-11-21 06:30 · Score: 1

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... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:32 · Score: 0

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

Just create Continental TLD's and be done with it by future+assassin · 2012-11-21 06:40 · Score: 1

. 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?

--
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*

They only want to protect the Amazon Basin by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:44 · Score: 0

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

This is exactly what was predicted by MobyDisk · 2012-11-21 06:45 · Score: 5, Interesting

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

Re:This is exactly what was predicted by hpa · 2012-11-21 07:13 · Score: 2

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 by aicrules · 2012-11-21 07:16 · Score: 1

I do not find your link trollish. Just a mild "i told you so"
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by pla · 2012-11-21 07:56 · Score: 1

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 by dkf · 2012-11-21 10:09 · Score: 1

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).
I'm in a similar position to you, except I have knowingly been to .int addresses. It's amazing what having dealings with the EU bureaucracy can lead you into! (Well, not really. "Boring. Terribly, terribly boring" is far closer to the truth.)

--
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by dissy · 2012-11-21 10:31 · Score: 1

Pre-warning: this post is pointless

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).
I've been using the Internet since before the "world wide web" even existed, and I recall attempting to register a personal domain under .int, as well as under .aq (Antarctica)
I really wish I had my mail spools from back then, because those two registrars (aka the guy in charge of the top level, back then) had the most polite, curious, and long winded emails telling me to basically fuck off ;}
But at least they replied, unlike those impolite .edu people :P
As a /20 holder, I can still show up on IRC under .arpa though! :D
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by egcagrac0 · 2012-11-21 11:12 · Score: 1

This is very interesting. Sadly, no mod points today.
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by scared+masked+man · 2012-11-21 12:11 · Score: 1

Also rather silly is that the EU has .eu rather than .eu.int, even though its principal use is its own websites.
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by GumphMaster · 2012-11-21 13:00 · Score: 1

The only one I have seen and used belongs to ICAO. Specifically aircraft type lookup (CORAL cached: the site is flakey enough already)

--
Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by DragonWriter · 2012-11-21 13:11 · Score: 1

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.
The UN actually has both un.int and un.org; on the web, un.org is used for the public-facing website, and un.int is used for the "Member States portal". I suspect they may have been using .org before .int was setup in 1988 (which was spurred by NATO getting .nato -- before that I think they were using .mil even though they weren't US military -- and people realizing the kind of explosion that would happen if every international organization got a TLD like that.)
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by xaxa · 2012-11-21 13:19 · Score: 1

I think the most likely .int you've used (probably linked to from Slashdot) is esa.int, the European Space Agency. (In Europe, we sometimes pronounce that "ay-sa").
http://www.esa.int/
Re:This is exactly what was predicted by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 21:20 · Score: 0

At the risk of being trollish by linking to my own Slashdot comment:
http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=2782577&cid=39661791
You're absolutely correct. That is trollish. You sir, are a visionary troll! ;)

Re:.com ? by omnichad · 2012-11-21 06:45 · Score: 1

They use .gov.uk

Pentium, not 586 by Cajun+Hell · 2012-11-21 06:50 · Score: 1

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?

--
"Believe me!" -- Donald Trump

Re:Pentium, not 586 by Radak · 2012-11-21 07:49 · Score: 1

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 by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 06:58 · Score: 4, Interesting

The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System.

Re:Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 10:02 · Score: 0

I'd probably find your rant (in the linked article) more believable if you actually described what your site was rather than just using the "it was 100% legal but I'm not giving more details" trick that seems so popular with 5yo children.

Re:tragedy of the generics by muon-catalyzed · 2012-11-21 06:58 · Score: 2

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.

Re:.com ? by hpa · 2012-11-21 07:10 · Score: 1

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 ? by DragonWriter · 2012-11-21 07:36 · Score: 1

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, 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 ? by kenorland · 2012-11-21 07:43 · Score: 1

.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.

just drop this random TLD crap again plz! by someones · 2012-11-21 08:28 · Score: 1

it does play only domain grabbers in to the hands!

Re:.com ? by Patch86 · 2012-11-21 08:49 · Score: 1

Countries use their country code. UK uses .gov.uk.

The Amazon river and rainforest doesn't have a country code. Brazil, Peru etc. do, but there isn't one specifically for transnational Amazon-related issues. Sounds pretty reasonable that they would want one for it now that it's up for grabs.

Peruvians love to quarrel for silly things by Anonymous Coward · 2012-11-21 09:44 · Score: 0

Always are bitching for silly little things like Pisco boze, suspiro limeno dessert and now for amazon TLD. Clearly they share amazon land with their neighbors.

And France? by Eunuchswear · 2012-11-21 09:51 · Score: 2

The other Amazon country, with land borders with Brazil and Surinam?

--
Watch this Heartland Institute video

Re:And France? by Saija · 2012-11-21 18:07 · Score: 1

or Colombia, which has borders with Peru and Brazil

--
Slashdot ya no es que lo era! ;)

Comment removed by account_deleted · 2012-11-21 10:08 · Score: 1

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Short version of .amazoncompany by MasterOfGoingFaster · 2012-11-21 11:29 · Score: 2

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

Here's an idea - what if they move the dot and shorten "company" to just three letters!

--
Place nail here >+

.us by Pseudonymus+Bosch · 2012-11-21 11:38 · Score: 1

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.

Well, .us was ambiguous. I thought it was meant for us but it was ruled by them. How is that logic?

--
__
Men with no respect for life must never be allowed to control the ultimate instruments of death.
GW Bu

Priorities by ikaruga · 2012-11-21 14:41 · Score: 2

If they want to protect the Amazon rainforest, I think they should do something about the illegal lumberjacks, the aggressive cattle pastures and crop farms first. Respecting the natives, stopping wildlife smuggling and foreign companies from patenting natural chemicals found in the Amazon is also a good thing. I don't think the environment cares about 6 bytes at the end of a domain name.

Slashdot Mirror

Brazil and Peru Dispute .Amazon TLD

163 comments