Karl A said:
Anybody who wants a new TLD should have to pledge allegance to the
end-to-end principle (i.e. no new "sitefinder"s) and promise to adhere to
applicable internet technical standards and practices.
Dan K says:
The idea of harvesting bad DNS accesses as a business plan never occured to
be until I saw it done. Not a really obvious thing.
Anyway, Static, a little dynamic, or real time reconfigurable... DNS URL's
should for sure regard this end-to-end thing seriously. Problem is,
creativity can probably generate a lot of border cases, partially legit
dynamic reallocations. Obviously, the idea the people involved are the
arbiters is the real test.
It would be interesting if somebody (ex. grad student working on a Masters
in economics), would try to root thru the DNS issues from first principles.
As an example, a read the Japanese TLD doesn't recycle domain names. When
illigitimate, they get parked forever? Anyway, reducing the incentive to
Cyber squatting, without needing a quasi-judicial system... that sort of
thing; would be interesting as a thesis or three.
But, well, I do thing a .XXX one thats expensive (pun intended), like sin
would be useful. Of course, if the uptake rate was lousy... that would prove
Its occurred to me multiplying TLD's has this odd divide by N issue to it.
If you have X.foo you often want X.bar as well. So, if the DNS forced each
fixed IP to be bound only to zero or one DNS, this would allow TLD's to be
added with less moaning.
Ietf mailing list