On the back of wondering that an obvious option for reserving names for any auction, would be to note the interest that might follow from having [clearnet.url].safenet, I wondered if there is an option to enhance the DNS now to futureproof it.
I wonder that a number of the brands associated with top 1million websites might be very attached to their urls, and they might rather like the idea that the could have for example google.com.safenet. That would work well for marketing that safenet can adopt the clearnet. So, blogspace.com.safenet could sell their subdomain johndoe.blogspace.com.safenet without affecting the rest of the subdomains on that blogspace.com.safenet.
The obvious issue then is that currently the DNS resolves as PublicID.safenet and the PublicID has access to all or none of a domain.
Could the DNS be made to resolve such that the owner of a parent can gift or sell a child domain?
For example, could Maidsafe own com.safenet ; net.safenet ; [country-two-letter-domain].safenet; etc, then sell for example google.com.safenet to whoever have a $billion to spare??
I wonder it might be possible, if fiddly to fix that but a powerful incentive to those with cash to splash. Perhaps though it would be possible when we get to the point that transfer of asset is possible - be that file or directory or publicID.safenet… could we not have also, transfer of individual subdomain.publicID.safenet too?
Naturally this doesn’t solve the problem of how attractive nonurl.safenet might become but for url’s perhaps the real world owner of each could have first option on it before it goes to auction otherwise?
The thing is, such a scheme would have to somehow become autonomous long before it reached the ICANN scale. Such sale of domains by a centralized entity, such as Maidsafe, cannot continue past the point where SAFEnet gets big enough to attract the attention of the global ruling elite.
If it wasn’t for the global ruling elite’s meddling… foiled again
Still, I’m not sure if they could suggest that which is within .safenet, is there for them to meddle with. It’s little different that blogsphere selling a product that is blah.blogsphere. What can ICANN do… suggest that .com.safenet is theirs?.. that all .safenet is their’s??.. because [insert call to authority fallacy]?? They can do that anyway with .safenet, if that was to be a problem, the OP doesn’t change that.
Money the route of evil for the way it warps behaviour.
Also, the OP is more looking for the kind of flexibility that might be called for from transferring subdomains, rather than chasing the idea of selling anything.
People’s attachment to domains is an interesting curiousity perhaps - and then is either important or not, relative to that interest.
On reflection, resisting this idea, might be simpler?.. if .com is not useful for hosting the universe of .com urls as .com.safenet, then it becomes not an issue.
What’s in a name?.. as suggested, I was prompted to this by the chatter about auctioning urls; so, money is in a name. Oh, for a world without money!
Honestly I thought we were trying to decentralise. This also involves not having any one DNS system, and maybe even a “pet” naming system. So reserving any name losses it point in that situation doesn’t it.
So maybe each naming system implementation can have its own set of “reserved” names that each can sell off.
