Slashdot Mirror
Amazon's Quest For Web Names Draws Foes
quantr writes in with a story about backlash to Amazon's request for ownership of new top-level domain names. "Large and small companies are vying for control of an array of new Internet domain names, but Amazon.com Inc.'s plans are coming under particular scrutiny. Two publishing industry groups, the Authors Guild and the Association of American Publishers, are objecting to the online retailer's request for ownership of new top-level domain names that are part of a long-awaited expansion of the Web's addressing scheme. They argue that giving Amazon control over such addresses—which include '.book,' '.author' and '.read'—would be a threat to competition and shouldn't be allowed. 'Placing such generic domains in private hands is plainly anti-competitive,' wrote Scott Turow, Authors Guild president, to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or ICANN, the nonprofit that oversees the world's Internet domain names. 'The potential for abuse seems limitless.'"
Anyone who spent more than five pre-1999 minutes on the Internetties knew that the idea of a free-for-all of generic TLDs was more useless than the pope's nutsack. We watched the bubble burst before October, 2000 and saw what happened with otherwise-untrademark-able generic words was getting us into, and that was still with dotcom, dotorg, and doznet.
How is this any more controversial than if Amazon bought book.com, author.com, read.com? book.com is owned by B&N. Is anyone jumping in their ass because "The potential for abuse seems limitless?"
Because B&N doesn't own *.com, jackass.
Really, dude, if you're going to comment, at least have half a fucking clue how whatever it is you're commenting on works.
Sheesh.
An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
Because ICANN wants a few extra dollars, regardless of the disastrous effects it presents.
Or, simply follow the long established rules of the gTLD process. Brazil and Peru didn't file an application for "amazon," Amazon the company is the only entity which did. Now those countries are trying to get out of playing by the rules. Their objection simply doesn't fall into one of the categories allowed.
"National Security is the chief cause of national insecurity." - Celine's First Law
Okay, how about HTML, then which isn't based on XML bloat (HTML is based on SGML, and predates XML, although an XML serialization of the same content -- XHTML -- was introduced later, sold as a "better" successor to plain-old HTML, but with HTML5 pretty much got relegated to an parallel alternative serialization format rather than an replacement.)