Brazil and Peru Dispute .Amazon TLD
163
judgecorp writes "Amazon.com could lose the .amazon domain, as Brazil and Peru have disputed the retailer's application to ICANN, backed by other South American governments, who want to protect use of that domain for 'purposes of public interest related to the protection, promotion, and awareness raising on issues related to the Amazon biome.'"
It's ok (Score:2)
Bezos can register amaz.on and am.azon
Stand-By! (Score:2)
Re:Stand-By! (Score:5, Funny)
The countries in the Amazon River basin have a no more legitimate claim to the domain than does the company. Let them use
Re: (Score:2)
By that logic, amazon.com should use .amazoncompany, if they wish.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Short version of .amazoncompany (Score:3)
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!
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re:tragedy of the generics (Score:3)
Should have used location-based domains (Score:4, 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 [salon.com], and a tribe of warrior women vying for the name?
Re: (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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Google uses goo.gl as their own preferred url shortener, and t.co is Twitter's preferred url shortener. Both use these regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
Now you know [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
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,
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If there was a tribe of warrior women, I'm thinking they would have taken the domain already.
Re: (Score:2)
Why not:
amazon.bookstore
...
amazon.warrior-women
amazon.river
apple.computer
apple.grocerystore
apple.musiclabel
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon.ch redirects to amazon.de. Not sure why, population possibly.
Re: (Score:2)
Though the whole lot are really amazon.lu anyway.
Re: (Score:2)
The entire domain system should be scrapped in favor of a similar system like newsgroup organization
AOL tried that.
Re: (Score:2)
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?
Re:Should have used location-based domains (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
TLD's make no sense unless your a mega-corp.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
This seems halfway reasonable *smirk* (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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Mathematicians (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
Make that immortal insomniac sheep counters.
Re:Mathematicians (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.
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
Plenty of fail to go around (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree I would be rather curious to hear the sequence of events that lead to this dispute.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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.
$350 million so far? (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
hookers and blow...
Temporary Relationship Consultants and Pharmaceutical Consultants you mean?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Support (Score:2)
Just create Continental TLD's and be done with it (Score:2)
. 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?
This is exactly what was predicted (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 [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
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, an
Re: (Score:2)
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.)
Re: (Score:2)
The only one I have seen and used belongs to ICAO [wikipedia.org]. Specifically aircraft type lookup [nyud.net] (CORAL cached: the site is flakey enough already)
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [esa.int]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 milit
Re: (Score:2)
Pentium, not 586 (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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 apropo
Read the truth about ICANN and the DNS (Score:4, Interesting)
The rotten and corrupt Domain Name System [kimmoa.se].
And France? (Score:2)
The other Amazon country, with land borders with Brazil and Surinam?
Re: (Score:2)
Priorities (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Should the United Kingdom be told to use uk.gov instead of .uk? Et al.
Re: (Score:2)
They use .gov.uk
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Because .gov predates the geographical domains like .us.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
They were described in the same RFC, but .gov was established at that time and .us was not. Specifically, in RFC 920 [ietf.org], 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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re:Good (Score:5, Interesting)
Unless it's 2002 again and we're suddenly writing out "www." for everything?
Re:Good (Score:4, Informative)
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".
Re:Good (Score:4, 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.
Re: (Score:2)
A hostname is a domain name assigned to a host computer. [wikipedia.org] Therefore, "amazon" can be both.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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/ [twitter.com] connects, no www.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
http://ws/ [ws] should work (though it's only a redirect), so try typing things like ws or ws. in your address bar.
Re:Good (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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Safari does this now too, it is now the rule rather than the exception...
Stupidity is contagious.
Re: (Score:2)
Apparently so is Slashthink
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
(and when it gets an NXDOMAIN , it does a google search)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
prior art is for patents. this is about use of a new tdl