North American Network Operators Group

Date Prev | Date Next | Date Index | Thread Index | Author Index | Historical

Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

  • From: Steve Gibbard
  • Date: Fri May 12 13:29:36 2006

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.


Why have a TLD when for most of the world:

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

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 vrs

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 and 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.