Google, and all other domain registrars, are obliged by ICANN to allow domain migrations in case that the original registrar is shutting down. Getting money from Squarespace is just icing on the cake.
Google is selling Domains to Squarespace. Yes, many techies will migrate their domains, but majority of the people on Google Domains probably wont. That's why Squarespace thought it was worth paying anything for, after all.
Personally, I'm moving my domains already. But, saying Google Domains was shut down is inaccurate - it was sold, as business units/subsidiaries tend to be...
They are forced to sell it by their contracts with ICANN - this is not a decision that they have done voluntarily. If they can legally shut down Domains they would have done it.
Sure, in any other contexts, selling Stadia customers to Microsoft or Nvidia (for example) would be a voluntary decision, however they are barred from just shutting down this one. They can even shut down Gmail or YouTube with no legal repercussions (sure their reputation will suffer but legally it's in the clear), but Domains is in a different legal standing.
I’m not seeing why you’re being down voted. Indeed, the point being made (that Google would simply aborted all their domains if it weren’t for ICANN) is strange.
Of course they’re likely to not outright get rid of them thanks to ICANN. They could have however just given them away rather than selling them off. I feel like there’s some precedent there too? Maybe from Wordpress?
In any case, they weren’t forced to sell them. They had other options including _not_ shutting down. But even if they did merely give them to another company or sell them, people would have the chance to move their domain to another provider.
Really I just don’t get what point is trying to be made. Google shut down domains in every good faith interpretation of the phrase “shut down”. All the ICANN argument does is try to conflate “shut down” with “going against ICANN rules” but no one was ever suggesting that.
> In any case, they weren’t forced to sell them. They had other options including _not_ shutting down.
Fine, sure, but this is a cop-out. Clearly they really want to clear the thing: if it was to be a GCP-only option with no more consumer-focused Domains, they have temporarily set a transition period with no renewals and new domains and then bow out of consumer space, but even the enterprise version is being shu- sorry, I'll be using Google's term here, deprecated (https://cloud.google.com/domains/docs/deprecations/feature-d...). The Squarespace buyout is irrelevant here because unlike GCP Domains there are no automation features in the Squarespace's system (and have no plans to implement one), so you are required to migrate to another provider like DNSimple or AWS. This is a clear sign that they really want to dispose of it as soon as feasible.
> Really I just don’t get what point is trying to be made. Google shut down domains in every good faith interpretation of the phrase “shut down”. All the ICANN argument does is try to conflate “shut down” with “going against ICANN rules” but no one was ever suggesting that.
It's a reasonable assumption when you're talking about their first time in closing down things, but there is a clear trend, even solely in the enterprise space. (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38020254) At this point, it is clear that Google does shut down things when they feel it.
