Amazon has applied for a set of top level domain (TLD) names under the new regime at the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). Amazon would like to sew up rights to such domain names as .reader, .books, and .author. As you might imagine, some other organizations have objected. The Authors' Guild has a note about their protest on the front of their home page. The Association of American Publishers is also listed as a protesting organization, but their website does not say anything on the issue at this point, at least as far as my exploration shows.
There is a short article from the Wall Street Journal about the dust-up. But more helpful actually, are the e-publications, such as ComputerWorld.com, which include in their articles, as a matter of course, links to the original submission, and to letters from the various organizations filing objections. Hooray! Makes up for the ad, which you can skip if you are ready with your mouse.
Link to Amazon's application for .book (they also applied for less generic domain names like .kindle)
Barnes and Noble protest
Association of American Publishers protest
The most obvious problem is the use of such a generic term of interest to so many other organizations and corporate rivals, is that it would be anti-competitive in the extreme. It would also be misleading. Keep in mind how much it costs just to file an application for a top level domain name: $185,000! And Engadget points out that if the protest are persuasive, ICANN can rule that Amazon will lose not only the TLD names in question, but also 20% of each filing fee for each name in question! I suppose that seems like chump change to a company like Amazon. Maybe it's worth it to twist Barnes and Nobles' tail?
I couldn't resist the wicked desire to illustrate the Amazon fight with a Boadicea, the original warrior queen. All the Amazon warrior women I found were too sexy entirely. From a gaming ring link site, I'm afraid. Tip of the OOTJ hat to my terrific colleague Roy Balleste! (He had nothing to do with the illustration - don't blame Roy!).