I thank you for your interest. If you rereas my proposition
you will quickly understand why there are far more room in .sys than you expect,
how people register the format and how conflicts are handled. 1) to register in
sys you must be the first having already registered 100 DNs according to the requested
format. As I say your company is named, let say IBM. You have only to register IBM-UK.uk,
IBM-France.fr etc... When you have registered 100 of them, showing you as a famous
DN owner you may register for the IBM-*.sys format. You do not fight anyone else
rights (or you would already have had a problem on the other TLDs). You just protect
your rights.
2) The rule of the fist having registered 100 DNs in other TLD applies
to solve the conficts. If one has reistered abc-*.sys and another has registered
*-book.sys. The abc-book.sys is a conflict. The first one having registered his 100
DNs is the winner (every one knows is "priority" when registering and may either
register accordingly). Now we are in a club of real operators. Every one is made
aware of the possible conflicts ad may adress them also on a case per case agreement.
3) the rule of 100 DNs makes also sure there is plenty of room since the used
DNs already exist elsewhere. This is just better semantic.
4) to develop my chief
domain name. I take again real life facts and uses. The IBM-France server is not
on the same network than IBM-UK and than IBM-US. All of them have several machines.
All of them must be reminded by the public. Using com/uk/fr 1st level names (TLD)
is already marketingly confusing. Using 2nd and 3rd level names for France.IBM, UK.IBM,
US.IBM is okay but marketingly confusing. Also it imposes a common DNS management,
all of them being under the IBM domain name. Now specialized functions are under
4th level names http//sales.france.IBM.fr. Taking advantage from SYS allows to have
a clearer shorter address, better for the public and easier to manage as : http://sales.IBM-France.sys.
"IBM-France.sys" being a 2nd level address, it has its own IP address and DNS management.
Again,
I consider URLs first on the user point of view. The main interest is to simplify
the access (memorisation, typing) by the users and the management by the server (DNS).
Law, logics, etc. are secondary to that, because at the end of the day the user is
always the winner.
But my main point is that we have today only one way to
consider domain names (what they are, what they are used for, what you may do with
them, how to allocate them, ect...). I think than keeping that way we lose a huge
capacity for new services.
I am not sure I understand your understanding of my
system. I can only say that I would need several millions of DN to offer a single
simple service to the users, a service which certainly will go though some day by
several vendors, through the semantic of 2nd level. In fact I think the most used
TLD of the future will be the "null" TLD to be used for local/default calls (look
at intranet DNS).
When you say every one could have his name as a DN, this is
exactly what is going to happen, except that we consider that people will probably
use from 10 to 100 domain names eventually and probably 5 to 10 IP addresses (look
at the current demand of the Phone industry to the ICANN).