They're both domains, I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels.
The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world.
If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period?
> If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period?
The second question is a lot wider in scope and harder to answer, for one. It's usually beneficial to narrow scope to make problems easier to solve.
Easy test that might give us a hint, compare the google search results between
'"amazon.com" -site:amazon.com'
'"the amazon" OR "amazon rainforest" OR "amazon river"'
At least on google, amazon.com returns vastly more stuff. Hell, even '"Amazon" AND "Bezos"' gets way more hits than '"amazon rainforest" OR "amazon river"'
Obviously this is far from conclusive, but it's something. Google trends might also be an useful tool.
"The fact that you thought this would be a convincing argument is extremely laughable and again, palpably ridiculous."
Which actually probably better applies to your statement about Google specifically being built for US consumers, which is obviously nonsense.
Google works great in Finnish which is a terribly complicated and small language, doesn't seem like an US consumer only product to me.
And anyway, if we're going to focus on the English language word for the Amazon river, then we'd be better off focusing on the English-speaking market. A quick look at wikipedia shows that very few languages besides English use "Amazon".
>I'm asking why should they be treated differently, just because they're at different levels.
Well, you didn't ask that. But objectively that's what happens in taxonomies. Taxonomies are inherently, principally based on human experience and understanding. In your case what you're asking to do is just use the word "square" to refer to the set of all different shapes just because square might be the most used word when attempting to describe a shape. And that doesn't make sense. At least I hope you can agree with that.
>The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world.
Commercial is a TLD because it's broad. TLD's, by their nature, are designed to be at the very top of the domain taxonomy. Hence the name "Top Level Domain." It's at the top. So when you say Amazon, a private company that won't be around forever, should get the amazon TLD you are creating a very weird situation where Amazon the company has cemented itself not as a company but just a thing that can be used to encapsulate other "things." Even despite the fact that Amazon the company named itself after the Amazon River which was named that way because of the amazon warriors.
That's a lot of amazon. Maybe, just maybe, amazon the private company shouldn't get to own that category? Since principally there is nothing to further classify the amazon TLD as belonging to amazon the company, and not say the amazon river. That's what .com is for.
Trademark law in general already deals with the fact that words can become generic. And when that happens that trademark ceases to be effective. This should be a sign that any kind of brand TLD is completely nonsensical, because private company brands do not belong in TLDs, because TLDs are meant to house other names/concepts that have more concrete usages. Not specific companies that use their name from other concepts or higher level concepts.
TLDs are for things, categories, high level groups. Not for trademarks.
I already got your argument on why Amazon shouldn't get the "amazon." domain, what I still don't get is how those arguments don't also apply to "amazon.com."
> So when you say Amazon, a private company that won't be around forever, should get the amazon TLD you are creating a very weird situation where Amazon the company has cemented itself not as a company but just a thing that can be used to encapsulate other "things."
Right. And when one says Amazon should get the amazon.com SLD, we are creating a very weird situation where "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" has cemented itself as the only entity who can encapsulate all commercial activity in the world under the term "Amazon".
> Even despite the fact that Amazon the company named itself after the Amazon River which was named that way because of the amazon warriors.
Exactly. And the river has had plenty of commercial activity long before "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" came around. Why is it OK for that to be subsumed by "amazon.com." anymore than the rest can be subsumed by "amazon." ?
> Maybe, just maybe, amazon the private company shouldn't get to own that category? Since principally there is nothing to further classify the amazon TLD as belonging to amazon the company, and not say the amazon river. That's what .com is for.
But there's no "amazon the company". There are many, many companies called Amazon, or using the Amazon brand. If it's ok for a single specific instance of "amazon companies" to get "amazon.com", why is it not ok for a single specific instance of "amazon" to get "amazon." ?
> TLDs are for things, categories, high level groups. Not for trademarks.
Why should only TLDs be for that? Why shouldn't second-level (or even third!) domains be for that too? "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" could get "amazon.retail.com.us", for example. That would be more in line with how trademarks actually work.
>And when one says Amazon should get the amazon.com SLD, we are creating a very weird situation where "Amazon.com Inc. P.O. Box 8102. Reno, NV 89507" has cemented itself as the only entity who can encapsulate all commercial activity in the world under the term "Amazon".
Well that's how the domain structure is currently laid out. Someone has to get it. If you're just going to argue that the domain system needs more finesse, just say that. But asking these round about questions is pointless. At some point "amazon" the company gets a domain. right now that's the SLD, as it is for everyone else. ICANN has an appeal system if you think you deserve it more for whatever reason.
>Why is it OK for that to be subsumed by "amazon.com."
Because amazon purchased the domain. The domain points to a specific server. It's not a TLD that acts a registry for other domains. There is a very important difference there. One you don't seem to appreciate.
>If it's ok for a single specific instance of "amazon companies" to get "amazon.com", why is it not ok for a single specific instance of "amazon" to get "amazon." ?
I'm going to stop right here, because you're just arguing that the current domain system is broken. And that's not what we're discussing. I'm not sure what the motivation is for doing that is, but it doesn't belong here.
>Why should only TLDs be for that?
Because that's how categories and taxonomies work. I gave you an example with shapes. Hopefully you understand shapes.
Firstly, the current domain name system has included brand TLDs like https://home.barclays/ for years. So you're the one saying it's broken, if you think those TLDs shouldn't exist. Arguments like "that's how the domain structure is currently laid out" work for Amazon getting a TLD, not against it.
So we're not discussing how it works. We're discussing how you think it should work. And my request has been the same since the beginning: explain how the domains of level 1 are different from levels 2, 3, 4, 5, etc.
Your argument around taxonomies absolutely doesn't explain this. Taxonomies may be - and usually are - many levels deep.
That's kind of an overstatement. This argument has been brought up multiple times. And no one can counter it except to say "but money." And it hasn't really been included for years. It's been discussed for years.
>So we're not discussing how it works.
I mean very much, based on the historical record in front of you, unless an HN has edited the posts, we very much are. You are concretely wrong.
> We're discussing how you think it should work.
No that IS how it works. Brand TLD's are a very new concept. With very limited surface area coverage, and very little actual use.
I understand that some of you need to see how things fuck up before understanding how things could fuck up, but I think I spelled it out very clearly. Again I even used shapes. If you're going to argue about the semantics of shapes, I think you should adjust your opinions on this subject. Because it is tightly 1-1.
>Your argument around taxonomies absolutely doesn't explain this.
I explicitly referenced the domain specification and what their purpose is. I explained how taxonomies generally work. I explained how the domain taxonomy is laid out and its intended purpose. The fact that ICANN went for a quick money grab doesn't negate this. I understand that the HN technopoly cult thinks this justifies everything. But it doesn't. At least not logically or rationally or justifiably.
You're just trying to turn this into a metargument. Please respond with something concrete. For the love of god redeem this forum.
I understood the "semantics of shapes". What I struggled to understand, again, is how that doesn't apply to other domains as well. And I know I'm not a very bright person, but it shouldn't be something hard to explain succinctly.
From what I understand now, you argument is based on historical precedent: TLDs are different because they were treated differently (as general taxonomies, whereas domains of other levels were not) before the ICANN money-grab.
Fair enough. I don't find it convincing, but then again conservative arguments rarely appeal to me.
>Because amazon purchased the domain. The domain points to a specific server. It's not a TLD that acts a registry for other domains. There is a very important difference there. One you don't seem to appreciate.
There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name. Any practical difference is extremely questionable too.
>There's essentially no technical difference between a TLD and a domain name.
Yes there is. You just need to stop talking about this subject because you are very much wrong.
TLDs have authoritative organizations that adhere to ICANN regulations and act as a gatekeeper to a varied and diverse set of domains under that TLD. Certain TLDs have specific purposes. Some are country codes, others are specific scopes, some others are built in from decades past.
If I am so wrong would you mind describing any of the significant technical difference between TLDs and and domain names? I would seriously appreciate it if you could share your expertise on this topic.
None of the TLD nameserver configs I’ve encountered have seemed very special, in fact they’re exactly like the nameservers for normal domains.
The reason given was that the context was too broad, but so is the "commercial" context across the whole world.
If Amazon should have the second level domain because it's the most well know association of the word at the commerce level, then why shouldn't it be given the top level domain if it has the most well known association of the word, period?