unqualified domains, was ICANN to allow commercial gTLDs

[marka at isc.org (Mark Andrews)]

In message <20110620033503.20835.qmail at joyce.lan>, "John Levine" writes:
> >i think he's seen RFC 1034 :-).  anyway, i don't see the difference between
> >http://sony/ and http://sony./
> 
> Neither do any of the browsers I use, which resolve http://bi/ as well
> as http://dk./ just fine.  Whatever problem unqualified TLD names
> might present to web browsers has been around for a long time and the
> world hasn't come to an end.
> 
> The problems with zillions of single-registrant TLDs are more
> social and economic than technical.

And your technical solution to ensure "http://apple/"; always resolves
to "apple." and doesn't break people using "http://apple/"; to reach
"http://apple.example.net/"; is?

Similarly for "mail user at apple".

Mark
-- 
Mark Andrews, ISC
1 Seymour St., Dundas Valley, NSW 2117, Australia
PHONE: +61 2 9871 4742                 INTERNET: marka at isc.org