> 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.
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.