Slashdot Mirror

This link allows you to track the ISS from your location and I guess if you have the right equipment and weather conditions, you should be able to see it on the dates that it recommends.

SkyWatch Home Page

Start up the Applet and you can find it.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

There are over one hundred TLDs in the ORSC rootzone. They should be respected and not duplicated. It is not our .biz which is the culprit here, and we have NEVER made any claim to application to ICANN or decieved anyone. Our TLD resolves to the ORSC rootzone, not the USG root.

This may be coming a little late, since this topic has gotten old, but...

While I am all for alternative roots existing as is evident in my many posts on the topic, I do not think that ICANN (or anyone operating root servers to any DNS) has to respect alternates' TLDs. Yes, that would be great for the alternate - it would save a lot of customer frustration, but just because you made it, doesn't mean you can claim ownership to it. Until you have become the standard DNS - grabbing most of the world population on your root servers, your TLDs don't mean anything to anyone in the world other than your customers. Any attempt at a cease and desist would never hold up in court.

That said, I think ICANN did make a mistake in choosing .biz . If not for the fact that it is too informal, but for the fact that it is in large use already.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies, Inc.

Damn good response. There is a lot to think about in there....

Thanks Dave. ;] For what it's worth, you've put up a great argument as well, although I'm still sticking to my guns.

You're definitely right, DNS is at the center of the Internet practically. It must be dependable. But I've done a lot of research on this, and I really don't think it's going to break by having alternative roots exist and grow in popularity. I'm not going to deny that it would be much better if ICANN would release more TLDs on a regular basis instead, but they won't. Now, if alternative roots could be able to support both root structures at the same time and handle conflicts (ex: the .biz problem in the topic here), then that would make a transition that much easier. This solution is the next generation of alternatives that can do that.

I think something is going to happen real soon. We'll see DNS change in a big way.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Damn good response. There is a lot to think about in there....

Thanks Dave. ;] For what it's worth, you've put up a great argument as well, although I'm still sticking to my guns.

You're definitely right, DNS is at the center of the Internet practically. It must be dependable. But I've done a lot of research on this, and I really don't think it's going to break by having alternative roots exist and grow in popularity. I'm not going to deny that it would be much better if ICANN would release more TLDs on a regular basis instead, but they won't. Now, if alternative roots could be able to support both root structures at the same time and handle conflicts (ex: the .biz problem in the topic here), then that would make a transition that much easier. This solution is the next generation of alternatives that can do that.

I think something is going to happen real soon. We'll see DNS change in a big way.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

One of the reasons (some say that it is _the_ reason) that Linux has come into popularity as opposed to BSD is that it hasn't forked. BSD is split among the FreeBSD, OpenBSD, and NetBSD factions. A guy down the hall from me will argue until he passes out that NetBSD is better than Linux. However, Linux has the user base because it has not forked. The project with the largest user base attracts more users and grows larger still.

I am not in disagreement with anything you said (except your last sentence). I think you misunderstood my meaning of forking there. I am a devoted user of Linux and have been for many years, and what I was trying to convey is that people began to try out Linux even though it wasn't broadly accepted yet. It was risky, new, and undersupported. We forked away from using the retail stuff like Windows NT and etc..

Development forking isn't what I'm talking about here - I'm talking about industry acceptance and trying something new that isn't broadly accepted yet and has the potential. Linux was a perfect example of that and I was just making an analogy to that success.

If people didn't "fork" over to try something different like Linux, where would we be today? Things would be different. Linux helped grow the Internet in a big way I believe.

There are some times when forking is good. This is definitely not one of them.

And why not? I don't see any logic behind those opinions yet. They, to me, seem like old school opinions that hinder the development of the Internet. We need progress.

I don't want to stay in the dark ages, do you?

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Here's my next installment in a response to this comment...

Ever since domain space became valuable, there are so many special interests circling it that it's not funny anymore. It's pretty ugly, actually. Consensus building has been pretty impossible because people with dollar signs flashing in their eyes shout louder, and the people who are just plain kooks shout the loudest. That's hurt a lot of the development of DNS in the last few years. The one weapon we've always had against this is caution, and a recognised authority.

Can you explain this for me? How has commercial interest in domain names hurt development of DNS? bind is a recognized defacto standard for running DNS practically. Those developing it (ISC) could do what they like practically and we'll all follow their lead. And if you're talking about the root server structure, sorry - I don't agree there either. Read DNS and BIND set up some root servers of your own, and you'll see what I mean. It's not rocket science to systems administrators.

1. ISPs will start advertising which of the conflicting roots they prefer: "We serve ICANN names!" "We follow AlterNIC!" etc. etc.

While this may be true for the standard alternative it isn't for this one. And besides, we've gone through this anyway at a different level - Operating Systems like Windows. "This application supports Win95 only" You upgrade and move on. Are we supposed to hinder progress just so those who want to live in the past can get what they want?

2. Users won't understand a word of this

Maybe not all, but I think that you are discounting what the average user knows nowadays. Besides, things will evolve to allow users to get where they want regardless of which alternative they choose - again, I point out this solution which allows access to both even when both exist in separate root structures.

(Cont'd in next message from me)

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Here's my next installment in a response to this comment...

Ever since domain space became valuable, there are so many special interests circling it that it's not funny anymore. It's pretty ugly, actually. Consensus building has been pretty impossible because people with dollar signs flashing in their eyes shout louder, and the people who are just plain kooks shout the loudest. That's hurt a lot of the development of DNS in the last few years. The one weapon we've always had against this is caution, and a recognised authority.

Can you explain this for me? How has commercial interest in domain names hurt development of DNS? bind is a recognized defacto standard for running DNS practically. Those developing it (ISC) could do what they like practically and we'll all follow their lead. And if you're talking about the root server structure, sorry - I don't agree there either. Read DNS and BIND set up some root servers of your own, and you'll see what I mean. It's not rocket science to systems administrators.

1. ISPs will start advertising which of the conflicting roots they prefer: "We serve ICANN names!" "We follow AlterNIC!" etc. etc.

While this may be true for the standard alternative it isn't for this one. And besides, we've gone through this anyway at a different level - Operating Systems like Windows. "This application supports Win95 only" You upgrade and move on. Are we supposed to hinder progress just so those who want to live in the past can get what they want?

2. Users won't understand a word of this

Maybe not all, but I think that you are discounting what the average user knows nowadays. Besides, things will evolve to allow users to get where they want regardless of which alternative they choose - again, I point out this solution which allows access to both even when both exist in separate root structures.

(Cont'd in next message from me)

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Here's my next installment in a response to this comment...

Ever since domain space became valuable, there are so many special interests circling it that it's not funny anymore. It's pretty ugly, actually. Consensus building has been pretty impossible because people with dollar signs flashing in their eyes shout louder, and the people who are just plain kooks shout the loudest. That's hurt a lot of the development of DNS in the last few years. The one weapon we've always had against this is caution, and a recognised authority.

Can you explain this for me? How has commercial interest in domain names hurt development of DNS? bind is a recognized defacto standard for running DNS practically. Those developing it (ISC) could do what they like practically and we'll all follow their lead. And if you're talking about the root server structure, sorry - I don't agree there either. Read DNS and BIND set up some root servers of your own, and you'll see what I mean. It's not rocket science to systems administrators.

1. ISPs will start advertising which of the conflicting roots they prefer: "We serve ICANN names!" "We follow AlterNIC!" etc. etc.

While this may be true for the standard alternative it isn't for this one. And besides, we've gone through this anyway at a different level - Operating Systems like Windows. "This application supports Win95 only" You upgrade and move on. Are we supposed to hinder progress just so those who want to live in the past can get what they want?

2. Users won't understand a word of this

Maybe not all, but I think that you are discounting what the average user knows nowadays. Besides, things will evolve to allow users to get where they want regardless of which alternative they choose - again, I point out this solution which allows access to both even when both exist in separate root structures.

(Cont'd in next message from me)

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

OK - my third response to this comment.

3. Users will complain "Why can't I reach mysite.biz!"

Maybe initially with some of the basic "use a different root.db" alternatives, but it'll pass. Newer solutions (like the one mentioned above) will evolve however, and not pose such a problem. It isn't going to be as big a deal as you are making out of it.

4. Lawsuit free-for-all over misleading advertisements and broken SLAs

You only register a domain name for a specified period of time - if you are using the basic alternative - just don't renew your registration next time around. Otherwise use the newer DNS solutions that can work with both as mentioned earlier. On top of that, when you register one of these domains, you know what you're getting into.

5. Lawsuit free-for-all over conflicting trademarks

Sorry, that statement is just plain wrong.

6. AOL, Microsoft and some others will remove DNS access from the user (URL bars, email addresses, etc) and replace it with a directory system that they manage (keyword searches, address books). One of these will gain a monopoly. No one but slashdot readers will care.

That'll never happen either. That would mean that they have to get out of the email game which AOL and Microsoft (Outlook) are so big in. Email depends on DNS. However, if I'm wrong, a new email standard can evolve from this that is more robust. Evolution is good.

Don't be fooled into thinking that everyone pushing for alternate DNS has the good of the internet at heart. Some of them mean well, I'm sure. Some of them are sound guys. I'm equally sure that some of them are out to grab a piece of the gold mine that is DNS, and are willing to damage it in the process. Believe it or not, ICANN is the one thing standing between us and a corporate takeover of the internet.

You struck a nerve there. Do you REALLY think that the Internet and DNS are not going to evolve over time? I respect your opinion, don't get me wrong, but I really disagree here. As I've said before, the existence of alternatives alone just proves that there is a problem with the way DNS is being managed. And about ICANN standing between us and a corporate takeover - I'm really having trouble holding myself together on that one. A corporate takeover? Of what, DNS?!? What do you mean anyway? ICANN is a corporation right now anyway. Granted, it's non-profit, but I'm not convinced that profit isn't their practice - at $50,000 a pop for just a shot at getting the right to be a registry for a TLD, I think that is a blatant rip off.

To drag this back on topic? We're seeing the beginning of this now. Everyone's been bitching at ICANN to hurry up and introduce some new TLDs already (watch for buzzwords such as "artificial scarcity" in other slashdot posts near you!) What happened? Someone tried to preempt them and lured a some-thousand userbase to give themselves some credence. What do ICANN do here? Reject potentially better-prepared proposals for favour of this one? I don't think that's fair.

Didn't understand this comment that much. Can you explain a little further? (Seriously).

Think for yourselves. Don't be afraid not to fork.

I agree. And remember, don't hinder progress.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

I don't know why anyone has challenged your points here Dave, because I think that you are proposing that we stagnate evolution in your opinion. I'll address some of your points and then make more.

Internet "precendent" says that we've tried to work out problems through consensus building. Seriously! We get together in groups like RIPE and NANOG, present our ideas, and try to build consensus. We can fork, yeah, but we fork as little as possible, because when we fork, we split the user base and we are all weaker because of it.

The Internet is a completely different animal than anything that has existed before. I'm not sure - you might want to ask Vinton about this - but I don't think that it was supposed to get this big. It wasn't supposed to catch on like a virus. We've got to make changes for it at its speed.

DNS came out some time ago to address the naming issues because there started to be more IP's than one could remember. Well, in the recent year or two, it has become blatantly obvious that the gTLDs (.com, .net, .org, etc.) aren't enough, so we're taking more in other ways - (for example .tv - supposed to be a ccTLD for Tuvalu but purchased for use as "television").

The point is, there's something wrong here, and there has to be something done. That control isn't a good thing, it stagnates the growth of the Internet. You nor any other technical or nontechnical person can convince me that there is a good reason why we can't have more TLDs.This is the reason why we have Alternate root servers out there - because there aren't enough TLDs. And the new ones that ICANN chose? They aren't going to help. What serious business wants to have .biz? It sounds too informal. .coop ? .aero? I'm sorry - but this just shows how little ICANN is really doing for us.

So, as for you stating about forking and it making us weak - well, I'm going to say one word - Linux. I'm sure you've heard of it. It's affected the computing industry in a BIG way. Nuff' said.

This is getting long so I'll address more points in my next response to this.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Quick correction there:

ICANN had a contract to run the top-level servers that everyone was using.

This is a common misconception. The root servers of the Internet aren't run by ICANN. They are run by supporting organizations around the world. This link shows where they are and who runs them. I believe the information is still accurate.

Some quick history about root servers and ICANN. The main root server - the "A root" or a.root-servers.net, is under the control of Network Solutions (now a part of Verisign). This server is where new TLDs are added. If you check your root.db or named.ca - the A root server is listed first. Other root servers get their info from that one.

So, ICANN, formed in October of 1998, was given the responsibility of managing DNS TLDs after the government decided that it should be in the hands of a private organization. Here is the scope of ICANN's control (in my words):

They manage the creation of new TLDs

They can say who is the registry to handle a TLD

They settle disputes over domain names

That's it. They can't touch alternate root structures.

All that needs to be done is for people to make a mass migration over to an alternate DNS structure. If you get enough people to be interested, ICANN will lose its clout, and pretty much fizzle away.

As I mentioned earlier, alternate DNS structures are a start, but you need more than an alternate root structure - you need compatibility with the legacy DNS structure as well - email is a perfect example. How will email servers talk to each other if one person is using an alternate DNS structure and another isn't? This place has something different that just might pull that transition off though.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Quick correction there:

ICANN had a contract to run the top-level servers that everyone was using.

This is a common misconception. The root servers of the Internet aren't run by ICANN. They are run by supporting organizations around the world. This link shows where they are and who runs them. I believe the information is still accurate.

Some quick history about root servers and ICANN. The main root server - the "A root" or a.root-servers.net, is under the control of Network Solutions (now a part of Verisign). This server is where new TLDs are added. If you check your root.db or named.ca - the A root server is listed first. Other root servers get their info from that one.

So, ICANN, formed in October of 1998, was given the responsibility of managing DNS TLDs after the government decided that it should be in the hands of a private organization. Here is the scope of ICANN's control (in my words):

They manage the creation of new TLDs

They can say who is the registry to handle a TLD

They settle disputes over domain names

That's it. They can't touch alternate root structures.

All that needs to be done is for people to make a mass migration over to an alternate DNS structure. If you get enough people to be interested, ICANN will lose its clout, and pretty much fizzle away.

As I mentioned earlier, alternate DNS structures are a start, but you need more than an alternate root structure - you need compatibility with the legacy DNS structure as well - email is a perfect example. How will email servers talk to each other if one person is using an alternate DNS structure and another isn't? This place has something different that just might pull that transition off though.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

Laws without enforcement or the will of enforcement are worse than no laws at all. If ICANN is the United Nations, then we can do what we have always done: ignore them.

This could turn into a debate on governments, but I think that the UN has no real power to enforce anything it wants to do. It depends on the representatives to have their governments carry out the actions. If you could depend on the UN itself to carry out actions, that's a different story. Give it some sort of strong military presence, and maybe things could be enforced. Don't know if that'll happen though.

I do believe that if the UN had more strength, they could be the ones to enforce any "laws" on the Internet and more specifically to our topic, the DNS.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

We should revert to accessing resources just by using IP addresses, and forget about ICANN and the greedy domain registrars.

Excuse my bluntness, but that doesn't make any sense. How do you expect the average nontechnical person to remember IP addresses. Be honest - if you were walking on the street and saw a sign for Macy's and wanted to shop online, what would be easier for you to remember at the spur of the moment? www.macys.com, macys.com, macys.shopping, or 63.73.131.68 ? How about an email address? Would you want to send email to me at cmilkosky@opendnstech.com or my IP address? Sorry, but as a human, I find the names easier to remember and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You can't just abandon DNS anymore. There has to be an orderly transition away from it that makes sense. Something new may form in the next few years, but we aren't going to be abandoning DNS any time soon because of the apps that depend on it. Everything using the Internet is built around the use of DNS.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies,Inc.

We should revert to accessing resources just by using IP addresses, and forget about ICANN and the greedy domain registrars.

Excuse my bluntness, but that doesn't make any sense. How do you expect the average nontechnical person to remember IP addresses. Be honest - if you were walking on the street and saw a sign for Macy's and wanted to shop online, what would be easier for you to remember at the spur of the moment? www.macys.com, macys.com, macys.shopping, or 63.73.131.68 ? How about an email address? Would you want to send email to me at cmilkosky@opendnstech.com or my IP address? Sorry, but as a human, I find the names easier to remember and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

You can't just abandon DNS anymore. There has to be an orderly transition away from it that makes sense. Something new may form in the next few years, but we aren't going to be abandoning DNS any time soon because of the apps that depend on it. Everything using the Internet is built around the use of DNS.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies,Inc.

I didn't mean a government, I meant a framework to guide the actions of ICANN. I'm sure they have something, but it obviously wasn't thought out well enough or we wouldn't be having all these problems.

Oh, I agree, I'm just saying that I don't think the Constitution idea could happen in the world we live in today because of the governments that exist. If we had one world government (probably also be a pipe dream) or something like that with enough strength to enforce global laws, then this may happen, but until then, I don't see a Constitution working.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies, Inc.

So, for people to get access to these rogue sites, I need to add all these other entries to my root.db and other files. And merge the entries from the various splinter groups, as I can't just dowload one groups root.db and run with it. And what is going to happen when two groups both have the same TLD listed in there?

Not true. And I don't know why you call them "rogue" sites. They are legitimate businesses and only prove that the public wants more. Open DNS Technologies has something different that it's working on that doesn't require changes to root.db on servers. It also has the ability to handle when ICANN manages the same TLD. Check it out. And on top of that, it can do email between the standard DNS and theirs.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

So, for people to get access to these rogue sites, I need to add all these other entries to my root.db and other files. And merge the entries from the various splinter groups, as I can't just dowload one groups root.db and run with it. And what is going to happen when two groups both have the same TLD listed in there?

Not true. And I don't know why you call them "rogue" sites. They are legitimate businesses and only prove that the public wants more. Open DNS Technologies has something different that it's working on that doesn't require changes to root.db on servers. It also has the ability to handle when ICANN manages the same TLD. Check it out. And on top of that, it can do email between the standard DNS and theirs.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies

A Constitution sounds like it might be a neat idea, but do you really think that you're going to get all the governments in the world to agree to the contents of a Constitution? I don't. It's a pipe dream. The problem is that different governments have different agendas. It may sound crazy, but if we had one International government (only), I think it might be easier. Or at least one with strength to rule over local country government, then something like this might be more feasible.

Until then, I think the best way is to open it up to everyone and get the registries to allow mass voting on what new TLDs are added. WIPO can handle the problems with trademarks.

Another point I feel worth mentioning, is that the problem also lies with the fact that WE are not taking advantage of the alternative DNS systems out there. If we make a mass migration over to alternative DNS systems, ICANN will lose its clout. This should send a message to any future organization or government that would like to manage DNS. Check out and support:

Open DNS Technologies

AlterNIC

ADNS

Open Root Server Confederation

Name.Space

There's more too.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies, Inc.

A Constitution sounds like it might be a neat idea, but do you really think that you're going to get all the governments in the world to agree to the contents of a Constitution? I don't. It's a pipe dream. The problem is that different governments have different agendas. It may sound crazy, but if we had one International government (only), I think it might be easier. Or at least one with strength to rule over local country government, then something like this might be more feasible.

Until then, I think the best way is to open it up to everyone and get the registries to allow mass voting on what new TLDs are added. WIPO can handle the problems with trademarks.

Another point I feel worth mentioning, is that the problem also lies with the fact that WE are not taking advantage of the alternative DNS systems out there. If we make a mass migration over to alternative DNS systems, ICANN will lose its clout. This should send a message to any future organization or government that would like to manage DNS. Check out and support:

Open DNS Technologies

AlterNIC

ADNS

Open Root Server Confederation

Name.Space

There's more too.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies, Inc.

A Constitution sounds like it might be a neat idea, but do you really think that you're going to get all the governments in the world to agree to the contents of a Constitution? I don't. It's a pipe dream. The problem is that different governments have different agendas. It may sound crazy, but if we had one International government (only), I think it might be easier. Or at least one with strength to rule over local country government, then something like this might be more feasible.

Until then, I think the best way is to open it up to everyone and get the registries to allow mass voting on what new TLDs are added. WIPO can handle the problems with trademarks.

Another point I feel worth mentioning, is that the problem also lies with the fact that WE are not taking advantage of the alternative DNS systems out there. If we make a mass migration over to alternative DNS systems, ICANN will lose its clout. This should send a message to any future organization or government that would like to manage DNS. Check out and support:

Open DNS Technologies

AlterNIC

ADNS

Open Root Server Confederation

Name.Space

There's more too.

Chris

Open DNS Technologies, Inc.

1- Breaking the 3 letter barrier unleashes all sorts of problems and confusion. Some people mentioned we should move toward the USENET naming conventions -- what do you think ICANN's list of TLDs signifies? .museum? .pro? smith.name? Yeah, it's not alt.sex.stories.hermaphrodite, but it's a big step in that direction. I forgot who said it, but someone quipped about how to explain all this to their grandma. It's a good observation about how complex and confused the namespace will get now. In the past, you could basically count on www.whatever.com, it's been a no-brainer. But if these new TLDs take off, where's the consistency? People can't read a simple presidential ballot, c'mon!

I tend to disagree with you there. The primary function of DNS was to create a way to make it easier for humans to work with the growing number of hosts on the Internet. TCP/IP addresses were to hard to remember, so a number of systems evolved - two big ones were NIS and DNS.

That being said, what do you think would happen if you asked someone what dot-com stands for? How about dot-int? Or dot-org? You and I know, but non-technical folk? Most probably don't have a clue what they mean. I'm sure all here would agree with me on that. Maybe a UUNET type naming scheming isn't exactly the answer either, but something easier can be done - base it on simpler TLD names.

If I were a consumer and wanted to find a web site on Ford cars for example, what would I rather type that would make more sense to me? Probably

ford.cars

not

www.ford.com

Doing this rules out any other Ford company confusion because we know that we are looking for the ford company that makes cars. It also takes the hostname (typically www) out of the picture so that the user has less to type.

Is this something that can already be accomplished in DNS (ford.cars). Yes, if they added the dot-cars TLD (for example). Why not dot-travel? Or dot-family? Or dot-adult? These make sense and it would be easier for the consumer.

From experience, I can say that it is definitely possible, and would definitely be wanted by consumers.

Furthermore, we can't just dump DNS because of the two single most important uses of the Internet Email and Web addresses. We've gotten everyone used to DNS, we must figure out a way to change it into something else. I think that by opening TLDs (as opposed to limiting them), is the beginning of the reform.

Chris

-= www.opendnstech.com =-

gTLD = Global Top Level Domain. Right now other then the two letter country gTLD's there are .com, .net, .org, .gov, .int, .mil, .edu.

Little correction there - gTLD stands for Generic Top Level Domain and the two letter country TLD's are called ccTLD's (Country Code TLD's).

The difference between the two is somewhat understandable. ccTLD's are for country codes only, and gTLD's are very general in their scope.

Chris

cmilkosky@opendnstech.com

Before I begin, I really disapprove of the whole process ICANN has gone through to make the new TLDs. It's turned into a "who's got the money" game. Secondly, other than .pro , the new TLDs are useless. The choices should be FAR more democratic. And lastly, there is no reason (technical or otherwise) why there couldn't be more released at the onset. The DNS domain game has turned into a consumer oriented market anyway so why not open it up to the people.

From researching DNS I can tell you that there is absolutely no technical reason why we cannot add more TLDs. Hosting a root server is not difficult and it isn't a CPU intensive operation. It's more I/O bound than anything. Concerned about being able to support more queries? Consider the following:

The 20 something MILLION domains registered under .com are supported by only 11 TLD servers. (dig ns com). What does that tell you?

A simple Intel PC running Linux could easily do at least 3000 queries per second or so. The busiest root server gets 8000 at peak times.

Bind 8 supports up to 16,777,216 (2^24) zones (TLDs or SLDs are zones)

RAM is what's most important in a root DNS server. That's where you'll have to run named and store resource records and zone information structures in order to have fast response times

The only thing that might be needed out there are some more TLD servers, and those could be hosted by the companies that wish to hold the registries for a TLD (or TLDs). Alternative DNS solutions have existed for ages and are doing fine with lots of TLDS. There's no reason why we can't start making a move over to a more open and democratic solution like them. This new company Open DNS Technologies shows lots of promise. Actually works with email and through firewalls too.

We have to make a change to the naming system that's out there now. And keep in mind - the only thing that ICANN really has control over is the releasing of new TLDs onto the root servers. They have no jurisdiction over alternative DNS's.

It's about time we change things.