DNS is already centralized.

Yes, and that is a problem. But that's not nearly as bad as having Google and Bing have the same role. DNS goes through a highly decentralised network of name servers, many of which aren't at all controlled by the ICANN. Each country based top level domain has its own set of servers, and there name requests are generally cached on other servers still.

But when you type "company name" in a search engine, you give away your search to an ad supported private company in real time. Juicy profiling, no privacy. Much worse than using DNS.

Besides, when you click on a link from your favourite search engine, you're still using DNS. Now you have two single points of failure.

I don't see the problem with G and B in this role; at least they answer to the end user. Who does ICANN answer to? What is your alternative if you get crappy service from the .com operator? If what PG says is correct, you don't really have an alternative.

> at least they answer to the end user.

Yes they do. Just don't forget that the end user is the advertiser. We poor schmucks who type text in the search box are the product.

That's a different kind of centralized.

Everything going thru search engines, means you depend on someone who has no responsibility towards the people they have power over. That's bad; you have to waste time understanding their incentives and staying on their good side.

DNS suffers the same flaw.