[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
In message <4DFEAEF6.70407 at mtcc.com>, Michael Thomas writes:
> Isn't this problem self regulating? If sufficient things break
> with a single label, people will stop making themselves
> effectively unreachable, right?
The failure rate isn't going to be high enough for natural selection
to take effect. Remember the protocols we use were designed to
work back when there was only a single flat namespace. Simple
hostnames will appear to work fine for 99.999% of people. It's
just when you get namespace collisions that there will be problems.
Unfortunately the nincompoops that decide to use tlds this way don't
have to pay the costs of cleaning up the mess they cause.
Mark
--
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742 INTERNET: marka at isc.org
- References:
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: johnl at iecc.com (John Levine)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: jra at baylink.com (Jay Ashworth)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: ikiris at gmail.com (Blake Dunlap)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: ghira at mistral.co.uk (Adam Atkinson)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: jbaino at gmail.com (Jeremy)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: drc at virtualized.org (David Conrad)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: vixie at isc.org (Paul Vixie)
- unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs
- From: mike at mtcc.com (Michael Thomas)