Like this but with Internet addresses instead of homesteads. (Photo: flickr.com/sergemelki)

Boy oh boy: The list of applicants for ICANN's new top-level domains dropped today, and it looks like Google and Amazon like a lot of the same words.

Things are different from when the world (wide web) was young and no one yet recognized its promise. In those days, you could grab prime real estate and flip it for profit quicker than someone who bought a Soho loft circa 1978. But now everyone recognizes that a promising domain name means money, honey, and that means the term "land grab" is getting thrown around an awful lot.

Some of the applications are, as expected, no-brainers. Just in the Cs, General Motors wants .Cadillac, Citigroup wants .CITI, and the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants wants .cpa.

But the really interesting applications are the ones with multiple prospective owners. Amazon and Google are going head-to-head for several choice TLDs: .cloud, .search, .shop, .movie, and .book. Is this like the Filene's wedding sale, where you grab as many dresses as possible with the assumption anything that doesn't fit is a bargaining chip? The organization that issues ISBNs, Bowker, is also in the running for .book and seems like it may well be the most impartial choice, but what do we know?

Examining Amazon's other requests, we can't help but wonder whether the ecommerce juggernaut is building Skynet over on the West Coast. Besides .box, the company wants .bot, .call, .circle, and .now. As in, the Singularity.now?

Also, Google (which is apparently handling all its applications through a branch called Charleston Road Registry Inc.) wants .mom, .baby, .family, .dad, .pet, and .boo. We're not sure whether those are supposed to fall under "Domains we think have interesting and creative potential" or what.

Two utterly random gems: the Pontificium Consilium de Comunicationibus Socialibus AKA the Pontifical Council for Social Communication (which we assume is a branch of the Vatican) wants .Catholic, while Hotel Cipriani Srl wants .Cipriani.

Finally, the Guardian is the sole applicant for .observer. Sadface.betabeat.

Mr. Kohnstamm (ec.europa.eu)

The FCC might have let the company off with just a $25,000 noncompliance fine, but it doesn’t look like Google’s StreetView troubles are over just yet. The agency’s final report found that, no, the unsecured Wifi data grab wasn’t actually the rogue act of some out-of-control engineer. The supposed lone gunman was open with at least one senior manager about what he was doing--there just wasn’t interest in either stopping or encouraging his behavior.

This new gloss on the matter has European regulators reconsidering their initial leniency--and apparently they are none too pleased with Google.  All but two investigations (both German) were closed when the company ascribed blame to a single out-of-line engineer, and now, according to Jacob Kohnstamm, who is the chair of the E.U.’s data privacy working group, they feel misled. "We certainly will discuss the matter” at an upcoming convention, he told the New York Times, adding, "My first reaction is, this is a bloody shame."

He continued:

“Peter Fleischer made it pretty clear in his oral statement and in writing that it was the mistake of one single guy working at Google who had made a stupid mistake,” Mr. Kohnstamm said. “But apparently, it wasn’t a mistake at all.

“In a political sense,” Mr. Kohnstamm continued, “that would be considered contempt of Parliament and would mean the end of the career for the person responsible.”

But even if regulators don't reopen their closed cases, the matter is likely to play into the ongoing European investigation into Google's controversial updates to its privacy policy.

Ms. Wilkinson. (www.paulweiss.com)

Well, it doesn’t look like Google’s antitrust investigation is disappearing any time soon. The FTC hasn’t decided whether to bring a lawsuit, but the agency is bringing in a famous litigator to help run things. Reuters reports that former federal prosecutor and courtroom badass Beth Wilkinson will join the investigation Monday. She is perhaps best known for helping send Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh to death row.

Now, the FTC does not want anyone assuming that this guarantees a lawsuit. Richard Feinstein, who is the director of the FTC’s Bureau of Competition, told the AP that they are simply “delighted to have someone of her caliber helping us on such an important matter.” But former FTC official David Wales was more colorful:

“This may not be a declaration of all-out war, but it’s like things have been ratcheted up to ‘Defcon 4,’” said Wales, now a partner at the law firm of Jones Day. “You don’t do something like this unless you think there is a good chance there will be litigation.”

Reuters also points out that the last two times the agency did this, lawsuits have been the eventual result.

Let’s just say there’s probably a reason the search goliath is spending all that money on lobbying.

But while nosing around Google’s terms of service, Betabeat found something rather interesting/amusing nestled under “Our Warranties and Disclaimers.” And that's a pretty clear refusal to make a blanket promise that their products will work like you want, when you want.

First comes a gentle introduction, cautioning, “We provide our Services using a commercially reasonable level of skill and care and we hope that you will enjoy using them. But there are certain things that we don’t promise about our Services.” Then down comes the hammer:

OTHER THAN AS EXPRESSLY SET OUT IN THESE TERMS OR ADDITIONAL TERMS, NEITHER GOOGLE NOR ITS SUPPLIERS OR DISTRIBUTORS MAKE ANY SPECIFIC PROMISES ABOUT THE SERVICES. FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON’T MAKE ANY COMMITMENTS ABOUT THE CONTENT WITHIN THE SERVICES, THE SPECIFIC FUNCTION OF THE SERVICES, OR THEIR RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, OR ABILITY TO MEET YOUR NEEDS. WE PROVIDE THE SERVICES “AS IS”.

But Google isn’t done yet. The all-caps continue under “Liability for our Services”:

WHEN PERMITTED BY LAW, GOOGLE, AND GOOGLE’S SUPPLIERS AND DISTRIBUTORS, WILL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE FOR LOST PROFITS, REVENUES, OR DATA, FINANCIAL LOSSES OR INDIRECT, SPECIAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, EXEMPLARY, OR PUNITIVE DAMAGES.

Translation: Quit whining when Gmail, a product you probably paid $0.00 for, goes down for two hours.