MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain

Fri May 12 22:33:55 UTC 2006

On May 12, 2006 at 16:55 bonomi at mail.r-bonomi.com (Robert Bonomi) wrote:
 > 
 > > From: Barry Shein <bzs at world.std.com>
 > > Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 15:45:46 -0400
 > > Subject: Re: MEDIA: ICANN rejects .xxx domain
 > >
 > > On May 12, 2006 at 14:51 tv at pobox.com (Todd Vierling) wrote:
 > >  > The complexity added by TLDs has one extremely critical good side
 > >  > effect:  distribution of load by explicitly avoiding a flat entity
 > >  > namespace.  The DNS has a hierarchical namespace for a reason, and
 > >  > arguments to the contrary will convince on the order of sqrt(-1)
 > >  > people.
 > >
 > > As if you couldn't just hash on whatever the last component is and
 > > pick a server on that basis? Query(server[Sum(bytes) mod Nservers])?
 > 
 > That's right, you =couldn't=.  In the first case, *WHO* runs that server?
 > What if you are the -only- hit in that hash bucket?
 > What do you do if *nobody* is running a server for that hash bucket when
 > you want to register a name that hashes into it?

I'll just say that you don't seem to understand the mathematics of
hashing. Put another way, it wouldn't be wise to make Nservers larger
(or smaller) than the actual number of servers.

 > The current DNS architecture has a 1:1 correspondence with 'levels',
 > 'zones', zone administrators, and administrative authority.
 > 
 > Every 'TLD' has its own, *independant*, administrative policies.
 > Some of them have 'structured' second levels, (e.g. .uk., .tw., .jp)
 > others *don't* (e.g. .no, .fr, .ca, .ch). 
 > 
 > If you just eliminate the top level, then *which* ("in the end, there can 
 > only be one") of the various '.com.{CC}" registrars gets to control the 
 > 'new' ".com", and what happens to the registrations in all the _other_
 > '.com.{CC}" 2nd-levels that are now disenfranchised?

Obviously changing things would require changes.

At any rate it wasn't completely clear whether this was instead of the
current hierarchy or in addition to it.

 > If you eliminate all the 'structured' name elements, you have a 'mell of 
 > a hess' of name collisions to deal have to resolve.  *who* gets to use
 > 'McDonalds', for example.  the American hamburger chain, or the Scots Clan?
 > Who gets to use "yellowpages"? (anybody remember why Sun had to change the
 > name of their network directory service?)  who gets "shaw",  'shaw.ca', or
 > 'shaw.com'?  They're *not* the same company. :)

I mentioned these problems in the note you responded to.

-- 
        -Barry Shein

The World              | bzs at TheWorld.com           | http://www.TheWorld.com
Purveyors to the Trade | Voice: 800-THE-WRLD        | Login: Nationwide
Software Tool & Die    | Public Access Internet     | SINCE 1989     *oo*