I mean, if we created a new distributed system, and grandfathered the old one, how can the current incumbents stop it? The control over a name pointing to an address could be done with a blockchain, I'm hearing.
So we move to a new naming convention. An arbitrary prefix on the end of a name shouldn't mean $$$$.
I'm saying we (techies anyway, not money-grubbing VC's), can make the decision for them, en masse. When they say "But, we need to make money from this!", we reply, "No, we need a naming service for these internet addresses. Go get stuffed."
The finer details of how it all works can be left till later.
That's a weird way of putting it. Anyone can create DNS roots based on any hierarchy they want, no-one will stop you from doing that. The meaningful question is how do you get anyone to use your fancy new roots?
So the US might choose to allow cocacola.us, while the UK might have on a grouping scheme like cocacola.co.uk, and meanwhile North Korea refuses outright or insists on cocacoala.obeys.dear.leader.nk, whatever.
Not that often, and even when they do it often means very real issues in terms of governance of internet infrastructure.
> I'm not sure that making all domains depend on things that exist in the real world is a good idea.
But domains already depend on things which exist in the real world! Not only are they leased by real-world entities, but even the names of domains already refer to countries, companies, brands, products, activities, clubs, and people.
The real difference with what we have now is that it's a weird global monopoly that has shown it's willing to erode organizational principles in order to make a buck.
Splitting it up by sovereign nations is actually moving back closer to the decentralized principles of the internet, avoiding a single point of (political) failure, and creating subsections which can evolve separately and cover for one another.
Ex: Turkey's emerging dictatorship refuses to let anyone register erdogansucks.net.tr ? Fine, go register erdogansucks.net.de , and advertise with that instead.
While it's far less-convenient for global companies and "ignoring borders", it decentralizes the system. Compartmentalizing failure and allowing some kinds of competition.