− | Commentators note that alternative name systems today are clunky, hard to reach, and expensive; they put the onus on browsers, which do not want to govern.<ref>Tyler Mason, GoDaddy Blockchain Domain Names Webinar, 12/1/2021</ref> Adapting applications to use multiple alternative naming systems is complicated and particularly if the names overlap. Applications would have to know which alternative naming system to look up for each domain name or define an order for making the lookups. The approach for defining an order in the DNS has proved non-deterministic and problematic.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf Challenges with Alternative Name Systems, pg. 8, ICANN OCTO, April 27, 2022]</ref> Web gateways do not require any set up on the client's side, but they have to be maintained over time, must scale with demand, and are a single point of failure and a target for [[Threat Actor|malicious actors]]. | + | Commentators note that alternative name systems today are clunky, hard to reach, and expensive; they put the onus on browsers, which do not want to govern.<ref>Tyler Mason, GoDaddy Blockchain Domain Names Webinar, 12/1/2021</ref> Adapting applications to use multiple alternative naming systems is complicated and particularly if the names overlap. Applications would have to know which alternative naming system to look up for each domain name or define an order for making the lookups. The approach for defining an order in the DNS has proved non-deterministic and problematic.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf Challenges with Alternative Name Systems, pg. 8, ICANN OCTO, April 27, 2022]</ref> Web gateways do not require any set up on the client's side, but they have to be maintained over time, must scale with demand, and are a single point of failure and a target for [[Threat Actor|malicious actors]]. When a plurality of naming systems is deployed, the same number of bridges must be built, and users need to know to which alternative naming system the domain is registered to be able to use the right bridge to reach it.<ref>[https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/octo-034-27apr22-en.pdf Challenges with Alternative Name Systems, pg. 12, ICANN OCTO, April 27, 2022]</ref> |
| * Limited audience: few people can view sites or send emails and only to those also using domains in the alternative TLDs. This could be improved through the use of special helper applications, or if a custom configuration was made to their computer, or to their nameservers, or a custom configuration at an ISP upstream in the DNS hierarchy. None of these solutions were as comprehensive as being listed in the default nameservers that are seen when an operating system starts. Whilst technically trivial to set up, actually running a reliable root server network, in the long run, is a serious undertaking, requiring multiple servers to be kept running 24/7 in geographically diverse locations. During the dot-com boom, some alt-root providers believed that there were substantial profits to be made from providing alternative top-level domains. Only a small proportion of ISPs actually use any of the zones served by alt-root operators, generally sticking to the ICANN-specified root servers. This in turn led to the commercial failure of several alternative DNS root providers. | | * Limited audience: few people can view sites or send emails and only to those also using domains in the alternative TLDs. This could be improved through the use of special helper applications, or if a custom configuration was made to their computer, or to their nameservers, or a custom configuration at an ISP upstream in the DNS hierarchy. None of these solutions were as comprehensive as being listed in the default nameservers that are seen when an operating system starts. Whilst technically trivial to set up, actually running a reliable root server network, in the long run, is a serious undertaking, requiring multiple servers to be kept running 24/7 in geographically diverse locations. During the dot-com boom, some alt-root providers believed that there were substantial profits to be made from providing alternative top-level domains. Only a small proportion of ISPs actually use any of the zones served by alt-root operators, generally sticking to the ICANN-specified root servers. This in turn led to the commercial failure of several alternative DNS root providers. |