3 ms·
I find this question confusing, because it’s always been somewhat about brand and word ownership. Like `mit.edu` or `ibm.com`. DNS is quite literally all about
by bluejekyll 6y ago
I find this question confusing, because it’s always been somewhat about brand and word ownership. Like `mit.edu` or `ibm.com`.
DNS is quite literally all about names, it’s what the N stands for.
Can you give an example where name ownership was unimportant to folks using DNS?
- wizzwizz4 6y agoMIT and IBM are names they already had. But nobody owned edu. or com. – so why does somebody own space.? Why were we in a position where a private equity firm tried to buy org. for over a billion dollars, and nearly succeeded‽ DNS used to be a text file that people would pass around. Now… this. Something has gone terribly, terribly wrong.
- bluejekyll 6y agoDNS was designed specifically as a replacement for /etc/hosts. It’s in the opening paragraphs of RFC 1034 about why a single file wasn’t viable anymore. Even for TLDs I think the problems/issues tends to be more about operations of the TLD, because it’s generally a little more work than just a zone under a TLD. But yes. Changing ownership of a TLD that’s operating under existing guidelines for all the domains that use it, is a bad thing. I’ll caveat that with, if it can no longer be operated by the group doing so it should change ownership, but the same protections for the zones inside it should be preserved in the sale.