| | At Large Membership and Civil Society Participation in ICANN |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
|
How many TLDs safely fit in the DNS?
|
Log in/Create an Account
| Top
| 6 comments
|
Search Discussion
|
|
|
|
The Fine Print:
The following comments are owned by whoever posted them.
We are not responsible for them in any way.
|
|
 |
Can you point to any reference where anyone said the domain name space was a "scarce resource"?
Yes. Just Google 'tld "scarce resource"' for a long list. Circle ID recently covered one paper focusing on The Root Server is a Scarce Resource [circleid.com] - which is based on An Economic Analysis of Domain Name Policy [ssrn.com] by Karl M. Manheim and Lawrence B. Solum. The problem is that all the policy & regulatory folk that have jumped on the ICANN bandwagon have brought all their 18th and 19th century thought processes with them - including the age old ploy for maintaining power in a vacuum - controlling the "scarce resource".
Perhaps more relevantly, can you point to anyone who would want a TLD comprised of a large number of random characters?
Yep. It's been proposed before. I think Bob Frankston (of Visicalc fame) was one of the proponents of removing semantic meaning from DNS and creating random naming so it would be as unmemorable as an IP address. His proposal to "separate naming from linkage" was called DotDNS [frankston.com].
Other proposals of yesteryear with similar consequences include breaking .com into abstract layers such as .com1, .com2, .com3, etc.
Unfortunately, what most people forget is that what looks like random characters in English could hold perfectly valid meaning in another language or character set.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
Re:It's even bigger...
by SimonHiggs
|
|
|
|
|
Just Google 'tld "scarce resource"' for a long list.
All of the hits I looked at make a distinction in one form or another between "good" and "not-so-good", indicating "good" names are scarce. This seems obvious to me.
You seem to be attempting to assert that all TLD strings, regardless of length or string content, have equal value and thus, there should be no policies regarding the allocation of those strings. This seems silly to me. People want "good" strings (which are limited) and don't want "not-so-good" strings (which are near infinite). Ignoring this is a waste of time.
It's been proposed before.
The fact that someone has proposed a TLD made of a large number of random characters doesn't mean anyone would actually be interested in registering in it. If this was desirable, it could be implemented in an existing TLD, yet it isn't.
Unfortunately, what most people forget is that what looks like random characters in English could hold perfectly valid meaning in another language or character set.
Then the string isn't actually random.
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
|
> can you point to anyone who would want a
> TLD comprised of a large number of random
> characters?
Spammers and phishers would be very, very interested in having their own registries.
Kieren
|
|
|
|
[ Reply to This | Parent
]
|
|
|
Privacy Policy: We will not knowingly give out your personal data -- other than identifying your postings in the way you direct by setting your configuration options -- without a court order. All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their
respective owner. The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 by ICANNWatch.Org. This web site was made with Slashcode, a web portal system written in perl. Slashcode is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
You can syndicate our headlines in .rdf, .rss, or .xml. Domain registration services donated by DomainRegistry.com
|
