Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

[Jim Popovitch <jimpop () yahoo com>]

Fred Baker wrote:
> On May 11, 2006, at 8:42 PM, Jim Popovitch wrote:
>
> > Why not just plain ole hostnames like nanog, www.nanog, mail.nanog
>
> For the same reason DNS was created in the first place. You will recall 
> that we actually HAD a hostname file that we traded around...

Let's not go backwards now.... ;-)

Note: I didn't advocate replacing DNS with host files.  I'll attempt to 
clarify:  If X number of DNS servers can server Y number of TLDs, why 
can't X number of completely re-designed DNS servers handle just root 
domain names without a TLD.

Examples:

    www.microsoft
    smtp.microsoft
    www.google
    www.yahoo
    mail.yahoo

Why have a TLD when for most of the world:

   www.cnn.CO.UK is forwarded to www.cnn.COM

   www.microsoft.NET is forwarded to www.microsoft.COM

   www.google.NET is forwarded to www.google.COM

   etc., etc.

There are very few arguments that I've heard for even having TLDs in the 
first place.  The most common one was "Businesses will use .COM, 
Networks will use .NET, Organizations and Garden Clubs will use .ORG". 
When in reality Businesses scoop up all the TLDs in their name/interest.

Why does it matter if your routers and switches are in DNS as 
123.company.NET vrs 123.routers.company

I do understand that today's DNS system was designed with TLDs in mind, 
and probably couldn't just switch over night.  But why can't a next-gen 
system be put in place that puts www.microsoft and www.google right 
where they go now whether you use .net, .com, .org, or probably any 
other TLD?

-Jim P.