Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

[Steve Gibbard <scg () gibbard org>]

On Fri, 12 May 2006, Jim Popovitch wrote:

> 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?

Note that there are a lot more TLDs than just .COM, .NET, .ORG, etc.  The 
vast majority of them are geographical rather than divided based on 
organizational function.  For large portions of the world, the local TLD 
allows domain holders to get a domain paid for in local currency, for a 
price that's locally affordable, with local DNS servers for the TLD.  For 
gTLDs they'd have to pay in US dollars, at prices that are set for 
Americans, and have them served far away on the other ends of expensive 
and flaky International transit connections.

-Steve