Google domains
-
This was publicly available over a year ago. http://googleandyourbusiness.blogspot.ca/2015/01/making-it-easier-to-get-your-business.html
-
@Kelly said in Google domains:
This was publicly available over a year ago. http://googleandyourbusiness.blogspot.ca/2015/01/making-it-easier-to-get-your-business.html
I personally learned about it (and consciously remembered it) around 2 months ago. but was still waiting on it because they have not removed their beta tag from it. But like so much Alphabet stuff, it may never get that removed.
Then my domains came up for renew, so i said what the hell, and moved them.
-
@Jason
Stupid US only -
@JaredBusch said in Google domains:
@Kelly said in Google domains:
This was publicly available over a year ago. http://googleandyourbusiness.blogspot.ca/2015/01/making-it-easier-to-get-your-business.html
I personally learned about it (and consciously remembered it) around 2 months ago. but was still waiting on it because they have not removed their beta tag from it. But like so much Alphabet stuff, it may never get that removed.
Then my domains came up for renew, so i said what the hell, and moved them.
I just moved my stuff about a month ago as well, and was planning to wait until it was out of beta. I was up for renewal and just decided to go ahead and jump ship.
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said in Google domains:
Hmmm Google just renewed a domain with GoDaddy for me last week. I didn't know about this, guess they aren't forcing everyone over and renewing existing ones how they were originally set up.
Why would you even think they could change it without your authorization? Transferring a domain between registrars is a very specific process.
-
ICANN has rules about that stuff.. Granted who gave ICANN power in the first place?
-
@Jason said in Google domains:
ICANN has rules about that stuff.. Granted who gave ICANN power in the first place?
wasn't it the US Government?
-
I thought this was always true, shows what I know.
-
@Dashrender said in Google domains:
@Jason said in Google domains:
ICANN has rules about that stuff.. Granted who gave ICANN power in the first place?
wasn't it the US Government?
Yes, ICANN and IANA (slightly older with a different history) were created to remove responsibility from the US Department of Defense and make them "independent," this was in 1997/8, and despite this "independence," the US military still has a lot of control, for example in 2003 they essentially took over Iraq's TLD upon invasion, for some reason.
-
@tonyshowoff said in Google domains:
@Dashrender said in Google domains:
@Jason said in Google domains:
ICANN has rules about that stuff.. Granted who gave ICANN power in the first place?
wasn't it the US Government?
Yes, ICANN and IANA (slightly older with a different history) were created to remove responsibility from the US Department of Defense and make them "independent," this was in 1997/8, and despite this "independence," the US military still has a lot of control, for example in 2003 they essentially took over Iraq's TLD upon invasion, for some reason.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Just because the DOD gave it up, doesn't mean that the US Gov't still isn't the one who put ICANN in power, in fact it sounds exactly like that is what was done. Of course the DOD (from the sounds of it) has kept a thumb on the table so they can do what they want when they want - your example of Iraq.
-
@Dashrender said in Google domains:
@tonyshowoff said in Google domains:
@Dashrender said in Google domains:
@Jason said in Google domains:
ICANN has rules about that stuff.. Granted who gave ICANN power in the first place?
wasn't it the US Government?
Yes, ICANN and IANA (slightly older with a different history) were created to remove responsibility from the US Department of Defense and make them "independent," this was in 1997/8, and despite this "independence," the US military still has a lot of control, for example in 2003 they essentially took over Iraq's TLD upon invasion, for some reason.
I'm not sure what you're saying here. Just because the DOD gave it up, doesn't mean that the US Gov't still isn't the one who put ICANN in power, in fact it sounds exactly like that is what was done. Of course the DOD (from the sounds of it) has kept a thumb on the table so they can do what they want when they want - your example of Iraq.
I'm saying what I said, they were supposed to be independent, but they're not. It's clear the military still does pull some strings, but that's not how they present the situation and that's what I was saying, it's why I put independent in quotes.
-
This post is deleted!
