some people have said to me that "put it in the DNS" was funny until DNSSEC was cooked, at which point it becomes the giant single-point-of-failure we all depend on, to provide a single unitary TA over attested things, testable. it's possible the unitary namespace value is now more about "I can prove <x>" than its about the simple unique label question. -G On Wed, Jul 5, 2017 at 11:39 AM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > In article <7DCA3DAF1993A2E66915D0DD@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> you write: >>Having enough of the world get aggravated enough at ICANN (or >>some other entity of one's choice) to make general adoption of >>an alternate root plausible is another matter and I don't think >>we are there, at least yet. > > Here in the IETF we are so close to ICANN that we suffer from sample > bias. To the extent the outside world is even aware of ICANN, they > see that .com, .org, .net, and the large ccTLDs all work, registering > in them is straightforward and not too expensive, and everything else > is noise. One advantage of ICANN's turgid bureaucratic processes is > that it makes it unlikely that they will do anything seriously > destructive because it would be too hard. > > We all know how to run our own roots if that's what we want to do, but > I continue to observe approximately none of us doing it. > > R's, > John >