Should Google, Amazon Control New Domains?

[Blake]

There is a bit of a real-world land grab going on, but perhaps more alarming than precious real-world real estate sought by service providers is the virtual land grab that is best summed up by Google wanting exclusive rights to .blog and Amazon wanting .book.

Read More

Courtesy of: Mike Barton @ Wired.com June 26, 2012

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

I have said it before, and I'll say it again:

No one company ought to own generic gTLDs, including Apple, Canon, and any other company that uses a generic word as a TM (even in a non-descriptive manner).

It gives too much power to too few companies and may actually violate U.S. (the 1-million pound gorilla) anti-trust laws.​

Smart companies that use made-up words will most likely prevail in their quests for their .brand gTLD.

I suspect that other companies will eventually rebrand with made-up terms.

*

 

[JPC-Sabrina]

I don't think that a few should own them all either. But, that may be what happens here in the initial stages when few even know a new grab for these new TLDs is occurring.

 

[ipsiness]

definitly no one should not control new domain or any domain

 

[iowadawg]

definitly no one should not control new domain or any domain

Damn! You mean no one can own a domain?

Anyways, who cares who owns the tld?

What is the difference between google as a company and some other company?

 

[Ms Domainer]

Damn! You mean no one can own a domain?

Anyways, who cares who owns the tld?

What is the difference between google as a company and some other company?

*

We're talking about gTLDs, not individual domains. That boat sailed in 1985.

Yes, if I'm a bank, then I will care deeply about who owns .bank because the owner of .bank can charge whatever he/she wants, and I won't have any recourse if I want to own my.bank and protect my brand.

Look what has happened with .xxx, and, quite frankly, I don't think that narrative has yet been completed in terms of the legal system.

And what about .apple? There are a lot of trademarks on the word "apple," so who gets the best shot? The company with the most money, of course, and the company that is most likely to run into anti-trust issues.

I think it's a mess, with a lot of big money behind it and a lot of big domainer pumping going on.

*

 

[iowadawg]

Well now, you worry about the cost?

Hey, what if tomorrow ICANN jumps the fee on ALL tld's to say $100 a year? Or more?
Will you quit buying domains?
Drop all the domains you got now?

Again, I and probably 99.9% of the people on the net could care less who owns the tld's.

And I am sure, the last worry for any banker is who owns .bank!

 

[JB Lions]

I read that Google wants some to give away free to people for sites. They're already doing this - http://www.gybo.com/

"What is the difference between google as a company and some other company?"

Conflict of interest/antitrust issues, some documented - http://www.benedelman.org/news/111111-1.html

 

[enlytend]

Conflict of interest/antitrust issues

Add to that a rather invasive privacy policy that extends across all their properties, and lately a lot of questionable, self-serving activity (riding on their rep as a neutral, user-oriented service.)

Has anyone seen any figures as to what percentage of applications are brands (i.e. probably for internal company use)? Just curious - I noticed some when I scanned the list.

It remains to be seen how the public reacts when they go live. People in general don't like change.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Here's an article, by Bill Corwin (Founding Principal of the Virtualaw LLC consultancy) and reposted on Domain Pulse, that addresses the potential anti-trust issues connected with Google and Amazon domination of gTLDs:

http://www.domainpulse.com/2012/06/...on-or-concentration-innovation-or-domination/​

I wouldn't be at all surprised to see some serious lawsuits, citing the Sherman anti-trust act.

United States Supreme Court, perhaps?

*

 

[DU]

There is no monopoly when one could always use a shadow DNS or create dark side directory services. It's all about the IP.

Left of the dot, right of the dot is all overrated. It's all about what numbers have dots between them.

 

[enlytend]

There is no monopoly when one could always use a shadow DNS or create dark side directory services. It's all about the IP.

Yeah, in theory, but in actual practice how likely is that to happen?

I think that this quote from that domainpulse post sums up the concerns:

Consumers going to that domain may not realize that all of their shopping is being done with one company instead of a competitive market

We already have that problem with Google

 

[DU]

Yeah, in theory, but in actual practice how likely is that to happen?

Where there's a will...

I think that this quote from that domainpulse post sums up the concerns:

Consumers going to that domain may not realize that all of their shopping is being done with one company instead of a competitive market

We already have that problem with Google

Consumers don't care today. Consumers don't even care if they get a legitimate copy anymore.

I read all the time people who bough "Adobe Master" for $300! Or a "Louis Vuitton" purse for $100, or "Rolex" and "Movado" for $100.


As for talk of a monopoly?
Why, if saying owning shop.TLD is a monopoly,wouldn't you have to say that shop.com is a monopoly? Only the owner of shop.com can sell subdomain.shop.com in the same way that .shop can sell subdomain.shop.

The monopoly is ICANN that has the singular right to sell ALL namespace. That's the real issue. People are fightingsitting on their armchair discussing the wrong battle.

 

[enlytend]

Yeah well ... but I agree, ICANN IS a much bigger issue.

We're looking at this from two different standpoints - I was thinking more in terms of the big-box-store syndrome. You can get just about anything at Walmart, so they pop up everywhere and drive the small businesses out.

But will it even have that kind of impact? Good question. We've seen plenty of new TLD's fail, is this going to be another TLD failure on a larger scale? Partial failure? Or the greatest thing since the invention of the wheel? How much more money are the folks sitting on the .com's of the new generic tld's going to get? I'm interested in watching how this plays out - especially how the public - ethe techno-nots - are going to receive this and how the companies are going to position and market.

And the repercussions.

Almost time to start the popcorn.

 

[fm1234]

posted by Ms Domainer:

Yes, if I'm a bank, then I will care deeply about who owns .bank because the owner of .bank can charge whatever he/she wants, and I won't have any recourse if I want to own my.bank and protect my brand.

Existing intellectual property and fraud laws, and existing UDRP practices, won't apply to these new TLDs?


Frank

 

[dna]

I think what you fail to recognize is that companies already own
.com, .net, .us. And these are companies that are a lot
less competent than either Google or Amazon. Can Google or Amazon
be worse than Verisign? I don't think so.

 

[domainventure]

True. But G is a different kettle of fish altogether.

By getting their .WHATEVER, they probably will give those domains for free to end users/SMEs.

By controlling what's being searched, G can easily sandbox .other domains and just show results of their .WHATEVER domains.

This will purely work in their favour as they can create a network of .whatever domains which carries all the ads they want.

I know I am assuming a few things here but I think they have control at the source...

I think what you fail to recognize is that companies already own
.com, .net, .us. And these are companies that are a lot
less competent than either Google or Amazon. Can Google or Amazon
be worse than Verisign? I don't think so.

 

[JB Lions]

True. But G is a different kettle of fish altogether.

By getting their .WHATEVER, they probably will give those domains for free to end users/SMEs.

By controlling what's being searched, G can easily sandbox .other domains and just show results of their .WHATEVER domains.

This will purely work in their favour as they can create a network of .whatever domains which carries all the ads they want.

I know I am assuming a few things here but I think they have control at the source...

That would actually get them into even more trouble, if they show that type of favoritism in the SERPS. Besides legal issues, perception among users. Plus, this giving away stuff for free really attracts spammers, just see blogspot. Their SERPS would be even more of a mess. Then it might be a case where they just give it away free for the first year, then start charging after.

 

[fm1234]

Thanks Eric :D

 

[Obosh]

That would actually get them into even more trouble, if they show that type of favoritism in the SERPS.

i don't think google would do that....if google shows any type of favoritism in the SERPS then people will lose faith and google will lose its acceptance....i don't think google will take this risk....