Indeed, you want ecosystem diversity. You don't want every operator of a pool of root servers doing everything the same way because if someone figures out how to disrupt those operations and if everyone is operating the same way then poof - they all fall down.

Top down planning/regulation has it's place, but it's hardly the solution - and brings zero value to this topic.

Indeed, in 40 years the model has worked just fine - surviving technical, political and legal challenges and no one was the wiser. There is zero in this law that would improve upon that record.

> The non-profit root server operators might have to leave the EU and put up active measures so that no Europeans can use their root servers. They can’t afford to do all the paperwork for NIS 2.

For example, if a university cannot afford to file the necessary paperwork, why couldn't the EU be the ones that are obligated to send someone over to handle the legwork and help them out?

I know that something like that would never work for reasons that the lovely people here would hopefully point out (since i don't really deal with the legal stuff that often), but here's another example - i live in Latvia, and the government actually helps me to fill out and pay my taxes somewhat. Granted, it only handles the most common cases and calculations in the form of a self-service web app, but if a lot of paperwork is just forms anyways, why not apply it to other domains?

In contrast, telling a university that they'll need to invest significant time and resources into something that they simply cannot do on their own, knowing the implications of this, doesn't appear fair.

Also, I'm not sure what happens if a crazy US president decided to disrupt .eu.

While regulating root DNS servers might be undesirable now, it sure feels like the right moment to start the conversation.

This part is solved with qname minimisation.

This is only a problem for a tiny fraction of queries. The records served by the root servers can be cached (e.g. .com has a TTL of 2 days), so most queries don't even hit the root servers. It's a much bigger problem for the registry nameservers.

the top comment on HN for topics like this frequently follows the format of your comment, saying something that sounds so reasonable, who could object?

But the way the internet works didn't come about magically, it was planned and modified through trial and error by experts who, working together, can be seen as nothing other than a task force. So you are looking for a new task force to interrupt and disturb a task force that already exists. This will inevitably lead to the need for yet another new task force to look into what this task force has done...

It is, and therefore it should be 100% decentralized, if only to keep it out of the grabby hands of governments, EU or otherwise.

It isn't.

Proof: the fact that US random three letter agencies can take down websites.

This is becoming less true each day, especially with the advent of IPFS and Ethereum. Uniswap's website will never go down. uniswap.org might be seized but uniswap.eth cannot be altered by anyone.

In a few decades it will be normal for websites to be decentralized and permanent. It's actually quite needed for the robustness of critical internet architecture.

Think about how many people have the Linux kernel Git repo cloned on their workstation. It would be essentially impossible for any government to destroy all copies.

Think about it. Domain names are seizable. IP's aren't. You can't stop someone with an IP from existing.

Whenever someone talks about regulating DNS, it should translate to "We want to take control of Namespace management.

/s

Take a look at https://ens.domains/about and https://handshake.org/