North American Network Operators Group|
Date Prev | Date Next |
Date Index |
Thread Index |
Author Index |
Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
- From: Todd Vierling
- Date: Fri May 12 14:52:43 2006
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=mhcb7L+Gri4b0LeAI3UX2mwNNRrvh1kejgo1ZPmi/C2Z/LL2McCU+vusafN7XrNyuytgLI+1kwBL42dauKp8+ETJ5iZStcgbtfOU/XS8IaG0Mh13sexLV6OukmKlsTSeBH72XZLJ/VC+6RCu8wZ3vnpiuxq10jgF5gcyBq6fIl8=
On 5/12/06, Jim Popovitch <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
Elimination of TLDs would in no way mandate that people register domains
from one global entity. Today we have multiple entities registering
domains back to multiple authorities, why not just have one authority
and allow for multiple regional registrars. TLDs just add confusion to
everything, and add complexity to the back-end.
Perhaps there is a better list to move this discussion to, if someone
would point me in that direction I would be glad to check it out.
There is no list to which you could move this "discussion" -- that
ship sailed almost 23 years ago (see RFC882 and RFC883).
The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
effect: distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
namespace. The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
-- Todd Vierling <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com>