From: Steve Kent <kent(_at_)BBN(_dot_)COM>
...
Second, althohgh DNS names, as cited in your message, are
widely used and workable, they are deficient in many ways. First,
many (most?) DNS names terribly US-centric. We really ought not have
the top level domains for COM, EDU, ORG, GOV, MIL, etc. There are
Why not? COM, EDU, ORG, and NET are not restricted to US entitites
and in fact have a number of non-US entities registered under them.
INT was specifically set up for international organization which seems
to me to make more sense than forcing the United Nations or the ITU
or the International Red Cross, etc., to register under some particular
country. Only GOV and MIL are US only.
carryovers from the early days of the Internet. Top level domains as
countries are more appropriate for a system, with internationl
aspirations. Although there are lots of users registered under DNS,
What's wrong with having choice and letting people decide if they
want to register under a country or not?
that does not mean that DNS will scale well into the commercial arena,
where conflcits over who has rights to short names (often acronyms)
will arise. We already are having problems with delegation of naming
I don't understand why there should be conflicts. Whoever gets there
first wins. There are plenty of relatively short character strings
to go around. The mapping from longer names to shorter names can be
done in a variety of ways.
authority in the DNS in an increasingly fractious new world order.
All of the problems with the delegation of naming authority relate to
delegation of "country" naming authority. Sound to me like an
argument for sticking with at least the option of non-country naming.
So, inductive logic applied to the success of DNS names to date is not
persuasive when arguing about names for an ever growing system.
Donald