Comment by larrys | Hacker News Reader

Comment by larrys | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

"Did you think this is how it would work? I sure didn't."

Was there something you read that indicated that what they did wasn't allowed?

"Another angle on this, the ICANN people must have known about these applications long before they were made public. How could they continue this process, knowing that is how Google and Amazon interpreted the idea of new TLDs?"

Everything including the entire process and requirements were public and anyone could have read and determined the specifics prior to any submissions (and voiced objections). From my reading there was nothing to prevent this anymore than if you filed for .winer you could determine only your family could use it. (Same as you get to decide who uses scripting.com, right?)

At this point anyone can file objections to granting a particular TLD (the fact that you are the only applicant doesn't guarantee getting granted the TLD).

So I would suggest to the OP (Dave Winer) that he writes an objection if this bothers him which will also serve to alert the tech press.

They saw the applications coming in, therefore had information the rest of us didn't have.

I didn't write an objection, I wrote a blog post.

You have to admit though, a LOT of people who were critical of the new policy have been saying this is how it will play out.

I guess I didn't notice until the applications were there in black and white. :-)

But the rules about the application process have been public (and changing, and generating controversy) for years.

Did you really think companies were going to pony up almost $200,000 for a TLD application, and then "share" it with the world?

When Nike gets .nike, or Pepsi gets .pepsi, do you expect them to "share"? (Actually, Pepsi has said they're not going to apply for .pepsi)

There's a big difference between a brand name and a generic word. Also, nobody's asking for free domains.

"They saw the applications coming in, therefore had information the rest of us didn't have."

But if you read and go through the application process (as well as the process leading up to this where everything was discussed and layed out) what those companies are doing is allowed. So the fact that they saw that companies did this has no effect.

Your assertion is that the press is missing the story. Which seems accurate. But wouldn't it be better to file an objection rather than just writing a blog post about it? Isn't that more useful and practical?

But then the press still would have missed it. And I for example might never have heard of it.

Also, what makes you think one excludes the other? Why berate the one guy who at least a.) paid attention and b.) wrote about it, for not also doing c.) and d.)?

Everybody is still free to file an objection, including the author, and now actually MORE people who would be inclined to do so, are in a position to do it (i.e. they heard of it, instead of this going down in silence).

Well, first of all, I'm not berating him, which is why I made an effort to note that I largely agree with his point here-- in fact, it is because I agree with him that I thought it was worth pointing out that "raising awareness" through a blog post is only half the battle-- people are far more inclined to respond to it if the author is willing to take the effort and do something about the problem.

Maybe Dave's planning on filing an objection, I don't know. If he is, great. But it is easy to come off as someone whining on the internet even if you have a respectable position if the only thing you're doing is complaining.

Was there something you read that indicated that what they did wasn't allowed?

No kidding, private entities bid on, to buy, new gTLDs. Did the author assume that they would pay for them and then have to offer them up as a public good?

No, we assumed that whoever owned .blog would sell subdomains at a reasonable profit to anyone who wants one. But now we learn that maybe only Blogger users will be able to use .blog. I can understand why they wouldn't sell subdomains of a brand name like .google, but for generic word TLDs we were assuming it would run like .com. Turns out there's no such restriction in the process AFAIK, and now it's too late to complain about a loophole that we didn't foresee.

I think the author assumed ICANN wouldn't allow private entities to bid on new, generic TLDs.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com