Should Google and Amazon be allowed to control TLDs?

[Clinton]

Article

Even if you put aside concerns of possible algo bias towards TLDs Google owns, there are other concerns.

...other critics of the move, including Irish blogger and domain registrar Michele Neylon, say they have no argument with either Google or Amazon — or any other company, for that matter — controlling their own domains, such as .google or .amazon or even .gmail or .kindle, since those relate to trademarks that they have as a corporation. But why should Google be allowed to single-handedly use .blog, asks Winer — who helped pioneer the medium through his Userland software:

"What if the name was created by an open source community, without the financial resources to mount a challenge? I have some standing there, because I played a role in establishing blogs. How does Google get the right to capture all the goodwill generated in the word blog?"

I think he has a point. Or doesn't he?

What about .cloud or .news?

[JJMcClure]

put aside concerns of possible algo bias towards TLDs Google owns

Ok, done. Google aren't stupid enough to favour a particular TLD, they know that they'll just get spammed to death by people using it to try and rank well. They've never favoured particular TLDs before, they still won't.

I agree that this is just a revenue grab. These new TLDs aren't needed and at $185k a time, ICANN stand to make a fortune.

[tke71709]

Ok, done. Google aren't stupid enough to favour a particular TLD, they know that they'll just get spammed to death by people using it to try and rank well. They've never favoured particular TLDs before, they still won't.

If they can vet the owners of the tld (e.g. ensure that only "reputable" entities can own a domain in their tld) then I could see that becoming a signal of quality.

I'm also not convinced that tld has never been used as a ranking signal. When .info started out they were literally giving them away, which made them a spammer's paradise. I wouldn't be surprised if the use of .info was not a factor in ranking pages (in a negative way).

[DomainMotion]

This is the one thing that I'm concerned with, being that Google is the go to search engine:

From above article....

Prominent Google critic Scott Cleland has argued that the web giant could easily give preferential treatment to its own .blog or .search properties....

Of-course, Google will and that is what they intend to do, after all it is their search engine.

Now considering that ".com" is pretty much engraved in people's head now, most type in traffic should continue to go to it. Search traffic is going to be a whole other story in regards to sites that use those keywords (tlds now.)

[akirk]

the issue is not so much Google and Amazon - but that any TLD should be opened up to a commercial organisation whose commerce interests also sit outside the TLD administration - i.e. that a conflict of interest between controller and user should be allowed...

but... that is now the new scene on the internet - and their TLDs will only be a small part of the issue amongst the many who have put in bids...

I am amazed that this approach was ever allowed - it has huge implications in terms of unfair competition - around the world online and off.

Alasdair

[grynge]

.TLD's have been a closed system for years. try and get a .edu or .gov or .mil So having more closed systems doesn't really mean much.

The only problem I can see is if G favours it's own tld's which I think given past history they will. So will it be an end of software such as Wordpress and other blog systems. If G favours .blog over .wordpress.com etc etc most users will eventually move over for the bonuses, and then G will more than likely charge for the service.

I actually think it's a big gamble on the behalf of companies like amazon. lets say they get .book and don't allow it to be an open registry and move all their sales pages over to .book wouldn't it be much easier for G to ignore .book they could always use the "Oh but really its a new site" Done correctly they could kill more of their big competition or at least any that moved to new TLD's.

[JJMcClure]

If they can vet the owners of the tld (e.g. ensure that only "reputable" entities can own a domain in their tld) then I could see that becoming a signal of quality.

How would they vet people and what would stop people using it to spam? They'd be creating a new rod for their backs.

I'm also not convinced that tld has never been used as a ranking signal. When .info started out they were literally giving them away, which made them a spammer's paradise. I wouldn't be surprised if the use of .info was not a factor in ranking pages (in a negative way).

It definitely hasn't. MC has been quite clear on that and the reasons why .edu and .gov links are worth so much is well understood and has nothing to do with a TLD bias.

Of-course, Google will and that is what they intend to do, after all it is their search engine.

Do you have a convincing argument for why Google would favour any particular TLD?

[tke71709]

Do you have a convincing argument for why Google would favour any particular TLD?

Because they own it, and thus can make increased profits by doing so.

Why would Google favour their own web properties over those of others in the SERPs?

[JJMcClure]

Because they own it, and thus can make increased profits by doing so.

Yes, that's what DomainMotion said, I asked if he had a convincing argument. How would they make these profits?

[tke71709]

How would they make these profits?

By favouring sites using these domain extensions and thus, essentially, forcing companies to pay a tax to rank in Google.

And by jacking up the prices enough they can use that as an indicator of quality as most fly by night spammers aren't going to shell out the big bucks to buy a particular domain extension (exceptions being porn, pills and casino, although porn is not the cash machine it once was).