On 01/05/2015 07:25 PM, David Conrad wrote: > Hellekin, > >>> For each of these names, it would be nice to see an argument as >>> to why the names need to be TLDs as opposed to being located >>> elsewhere in the tree. >> A common denominator of all 6 pTLDs is that they do not use the >> DNS tree hierarchy. It's not that they don't want to, but that >> their technical approach, both in terms of objectives and >> solutions, make them incompatible with a centralized, hierarchic >> name assignation and resolution. > > I think you missed Andrew's point. > > All 6 technologies use a string that looks like a domain name but > isn't intended for use in the DNS. Why does it matter if there is a > '.' in the middle of that string? That is, given the technology is > presumably going to intercept the domain name before it gets sent to > a resolver, why would it not be possible to use (say) BIT.ALT instead > of .BIT?
Usability. Especially on small screens (mobiles, etc.), every character matters. Also, we're not "alt" (German for "old"), we're new! DNS is "alt". I personally also refuse to accept that ICANN somehow "owns" the entire global name space. We must not let anybody own our language. Allowing ownership for certain individual words -- just as in trademarks -- can be acceptable, but never everything.
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ DNSOP mailing list DNSOP@ietf.org https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dnsop
