While examining Google sites under the .feedback domain, operated by .feedback, I noticed that they are exclusively accessible through the www subdomain and possess identical designs throughout. Is this due to a restriction within the zone?

The administrators of the newly established .feedback domain zone claimed free registration of the domains of 5000 prominent companies, and the respective websites now showcase reviews and ratings. These sites include http://www.stackoverflow.feedback/, http://www.facebook.feedback/, and http://www.google.feedback/.

By definition, such a "feedback" system is not genuine feedback, as the companies do not possess control over these domains. It is improbable that these corporations are even aware of the existence of this domain, and when they uncover this uncontrollable act of exploitation, they will be offered two options by the zone's administrators: either pay approximately $30 per year for the feedback or $50 per month (totaling to $600 annually) to shut down the site temporarily or apply arbitrary redirects.

This scheme is an effective method of revenue generation for the zone's administrators, albeit utterly fraudulent and legal. Several experts deem it as a disgrace that ICANN approved this domain zone, and they are urging ICANN to correct their mistakes and revoke this gTLD.

It is concerning to realize that such illicit schemes are not only prevalent but also legitimized by the internet's governing organizations. It raises questions about the level of accountability that these organizations should possess and how we can prevent abuse of power in the virtual domain.

The administrators of the .feedback domain zone publicized their plan to impose a yearly fee on corporations, including for non-functional sites. This suspicious practice of gTLD zone administrators was a topic of discussion in 2015.

According to the stipulated terms, if a company pays $600 annually, they possess the authority to redirect their site to any webpage or shut it down entirely. However, if they refuse to pay this fee, visitors would be prompted to a forum where they can express their opinions and give feedback regarding the company. Therefore, officially, this payment is not for a "faulty website," which is also difficult to dispute.

Despite the domain administrators' assertion that this is not extortion, this is undoubtedly a novel business model, which is generating revenue through exploitative methods. It raises several questions about the ethics associated with controlling domain zones and the perception of what constitutes acceptable practices.

The exclusive accessibility of these sites through the www subdomain is a deliberate choice made by Google to maintain a uniform structure and simplify their domain management. By ensuring that all .feedback domain sites are accessed through the www subdomain, Google can centralize their DNS configurations and streamline the allocation of resources for these sites. This approach allows for efficient management of subdomains, including SSL certificate provisioning, load balancing, and other domain-related configurations.

Identical designs across these sites are part of Google's broader branding strategy. Consistent design elements, such as color schemes, typography, and layout, help reinforce brand recognition and create a cohesive user experience. From a web engineering perspective, maintaining uniformity in design also facilitates the deployment of templates and stylesheets, reducing the complexity of managing multiple distinct designs for sites within the .feedback domain.

While it's crucial to consider technical factors such as domain restrictions, the observed behavior aligns with best practices in web engineering and domain management. Google's intentional design and branding decisions exemplify the intersection of technical considerations and user experience principles in the online ecosystem.
The exclusive accessibility through the www subdomain and the identical designs throughout the .feedback domain sites reflect a comprehensive approach to domain management, design consistency, and brand identity, showcasing the intricate interplay between technical architecture and user-facing elements on the web.