Hm, so to explain the problem better: I work for a large organization that has many sites. Part of that is managing all the names. We have over 500 domains and 75% of them are defensive domains. For example, if I have companysite.com then I also must have companysite.net and .org and .co and so on and so forth. They all redirect to companysite.com

[–] NicolaHaskell@lemmy.world 0 points 2 weeks ago (1 children)

I wonder if companysite. would be more expensive than a portfolio. There's value in identity trust and countless ways to do that but the Internet gravitated to squirreling away domain names.

[–] grandkaiser@lemmy.world 1 points 2 weeks ago* (last edited 2 weeks ago) (1 children)

So, if you want to be a registrar, it is a considerable responsibility, cost, and effort. It also doesn't solve the original problem. Users will still go to companysite.com because that's what they think it is. Trying to tell users to go to companysite. would be damn near impossible without giving a quick DNS 101 lesson. Also, your SEO would be fuuucked. Good luck selling that to any exec. As for your concern with the Internet choosing to go with delegating domains, it's actually critical to how we run DNS. Imagine if every single lookup had to contact the root servers. Every single email. Every single ping. Icann would have to be the size of Google. This also means that requirements for being a tld would be significantly reduced which would greatly compromise the Internet if any of them went rogue.

[–] NicolaHaskell@lemmy.world -1 points 2 weeks ago

I guess what I'm weighing is

In a world of TLDs businesses assert identity with a portfolio of names, one per TLD
In a world of no TLDs businesses occupy a single name with third party identification