No it wouldn't, by the very definition of TLD. A TLD is the top-level. Your scheme has countries at the top-level. You are removing the top-level domains .com/.net/etc. in favor of pushing them under country TLDs. Unless you redefine the notion of "top-level domain", you have removed TLDs…


We can already do exactly this, so you haven't increased the space of possible domains. Mathematically speaking, you have reduced the space of available domains. That is all I mean by elimination: the set of available domains used to be X, and now, it is X - {x | x ends in .com/.net/.edu/etc.}. Strictly speaking, that is a net decrease in the space of available domains.

Perhaps an easier way to settle this would be to show me mathematically why there is an increase, or at the least an equal number, of possible domain names. I posit that you have reduced that number because we can already do what you describe and you have removed several TLDs, therefore removing several possible ranges of names.

I don't think I've ever seen a '.com.fr' or similar suffix, so I don't understand what you mean by "we can already do exactly this".



It's fairly easy to demonstrate mathematically. Imagine each level of abstraction as equating to a digit. A domain with 2 levels of abstraction (such as 'mudbytes.net') would equate to 2 digits ('mudbytes' and 'net'). The amount of possible combinations of these 2 levels is exponentially less than that of 3 levels ('mudbytes.net.XX'), in the same way that a 2 digit number has exponentially less possible combinations than a 3 digit number.

I think where you're getting confused is that you can't currently use two different TLDs in the same address, whereas in the system I proposed, you could, though current country-neutral TLDs would no longer be "top level", and be more accurately described as "mid-level". What makes a system like that work is that all addresses would require both top level AND mid-level domains, so you couldn't just make 'mudbytes.us'.

Well, I said "can", not "always do". We can do this. In your proposed system, countries get to decide what to do; so in particular they might decide to not have any domains under their country TLD…


Obviously, but that is assuming that you cannot already nest domains as you wish, which is unfortunately a rather false assumption as is demonstrated trivially by existing domains of the form xyz.co.uk.


No, you can't in your system. You've merely added a new subdomain. You have not used two TLDs. I see what you are trying to say but you should not use the term TLD because by definition you cannot have two TLDs in a single domain. The TLD is the country code; anything below that is not a TLD. By definition.


And so you have even further reduced the number of available domains… Yet another swath of domains is no longer available under your system.

Since you seem to understand combinatorics, this should be obvious to you. Using your analogy of digits, if the current system allows more values for a given digit than your system (which is only allowing your "fake TLDs" under the country TLD), then it is absolutely clear that you have fewer available combinations.

No, we can't. More than one TLD is not allowed in the same address under current regulations, and if such a system were implemented, countries could not just decide not to have MLDs, in the same way you can't just decide not to have a TLD right now.



Well, if '.co' was a TLD, I might be inclined to agree with you, but it's not. You won't find 'xyz.co' anywhere on the internet, but you could very well find 'xyz.co.uk' under such a new system if UK decided they wanted '.co' to become a MLD.



I agree, but you were getting confused about the role MLDs would play in the new system, and I was trying to explain it in terms of the current system.



This is also not true. While there will be less than the maximum possible combinations due to this restriction, it will still be more than there is currently. In keeping with the number/digits analogy, if the digit 0 represents current country TLDs, and the numbers 10, 20, 30, …, 90 represent all the combinations of addresses with country TLDs under the current system, then in the new system 100, 200, 300, …, 900 would no longer be valid, but 110, 120, 130, …, 990 would be - thus adding more than it would restrict.

To crunch the numbers real quick, there are currently 249 country codes and 20 generic TLDs. That means that the total number of identifiable address suffixes is currently 249 + 20 = 269. In the new system, there would only be 249 total TLDs, but since MLDs will be required as well as TLDs, that brings the total number of identifiable address suffixes to 249 * 20 = 4980, or roughly ~18.5 times as many possible suffixes as there are now.

Edit: Apparently '.co' actually is a TLD, as it's the country code for Colombia, but '.co.uk' is not the combination of two country codes, so my point stands, albeit somewhat less clear now.

Of course you may put "TLD" names under a TLD. See: www.com.com. Or .co.uk w.r.t. Colombia as you gave. Quod erat demonstrandum…

(I'm not sure why you think your point of not being able to have TLD names under TLDs still stands after you showed it false yourself with .co.uk.)


You just started using the term MLD. I believe it is a little unfair to tell me I was getting confused about how a term was being used incorrectly…


Alright. Let's do the math properly once and for all here. I am going to drop the digit analogy because it is imprecise and therefore likely to lead to error.

Assumption #1: there may be at most 3 levels of hierarchy in a domain. For instance, x.y.z is valid but u.x.y.z is not. Note that adding more levels only makes my point stronger.

Assumption #2: Each character in non-TLDs is drawn from a pool 26 characters: the 26 letters. (Adding more does not affect the analysis.)

Assumption #3: A non-TLD may have at most 4 characters in it. This number does not matter; increasing it only makes all the numbers in the analysis bigger. I pick 4 because it is the length of the longest TLD I can think of.

(Therefore, there are 26^4 + 26^3 + 26^2 + 26 = 475,254 possibilities for each non-TLD choice.)

Assumption #4: there are currently 249 country codes and 20 non-country TLDs, for a total of 269 TLDs.

Therefore,

Under the current system, there are: 269 * 475254 * 475254 = 60,758,052,054,804 ~= 6E13 total domains.

Under your proposed system, there are: 249 * 475254 * 475254 = 56,240,724,764,484 ~= 5E13 total domains – because you are not forcing countries to actually adopt the "MLD" scheme, they still have the same number of 2nd-level domains available to them. If you force them to modify which 2nd-level domains they have available, the number above goes down.

Clearly 6E13 > 5E13 and therefore the current system has more available domains.

If you disagree with this analysis, please state clearly whether it was in the assumptions or the following math.

The characters 'com' and the TLD 'com' are not equal. Under the proposed system, I could have 'com.com.us', 'com.com.fr', 'com.com.uk', et al. You're confusing the actual name with its function. In the address 'xx.com.xx' under the current system, you know very well that 'com' is not a TLD, nor does it serve any kind of organizational function. In the address 'xx.xx.com', it is, and does.






Note that a country that opts to have no MLDs would be, in essence, banning websites. After all, you can't register "mudbytes" without a TLD, and the same logic would apply to MLDs.



Your math is correct, but the concept is not.

First, yes I am forcing all countries to adopt the MLD scheme. That's the whole point of changing the system - otherwise, it would be no different than it is now, and not worth one iota of effort. There is nothing wrong with the math in my last post. If you add another level to the hierarchy, by definition, you exponentially increase the number of possible suffixes, so long as the former TLDs still function as organizational structures, and not just names.

By far, the easiest way to explain this is for you to give me any possible web address. In return, I will give you anywhere from 0 to 20 (with an average of ~18.5) possible correlating addresses under the new system. We'll repeat this ad infinitum.

I actually just thought of an easier way to explain this, and I'm kicking myself for not thinking of it earlier.

Just think of the new system as being allowed to have combination TLDs. So, while, in 'mudbytes.net' the '.net' is the TLD now, under the new system, the address would be 'mudbytes.net.us' and the TLD would be '.net.us'. Does that make more sense? Hopefully it's easy to see why such a system would produce far more TLDs, since for every '.com', there will be 249 '.com.XX's.

Look, we can already do that. I'm not sure what more needs to be said. You're not adding anything new – full stop. :shrug:

It makes sense to me why you think this would increase the number if we couldn't already do what you suggest. But we can, so no, I don't see how your proposal is adding anything.

It doesn't really matter what you can and can't do right now. Whatever the number of possible website addresses, the number will always be larger with 1 more level in the hierarchy. That's fundamental logic and you can't argue it. I was entertaining this debate under the impression that you just didn't understand what I was talking about, but now I think you're just being stubborn :)

The reason why what we can do now matters fundamentally is that we can already do precisely what you propose, and therefore it is unclear why you think it's adding something to the existing system. We can already nest subdomains as we wish under TLDs. We can already create structure underneath country TLDs. In fact, several countries already have. All you're proposing is to tell countries that they have to organize their subdomains in a special way. But then you say that, well, actually, they can still choose what to do under their TLD. I believe I understand your proposal; what I do not understand is what problem it is supposed to be solving and how it solves it.

If you go back to the original post, I wasn't even concerned with adding more possible addresses. I only brought up the fact that it would increase them in defense of your claim that it would actually decrease them. The whole point of the suggestion was that countries would be responsible for their own naming structures, within reason, which takes the responsibility out of the hands of private entities which are biased towards certain governments, apathetic towards others, and prone to problems all around.

I also agree that several countries already have a similar structure, as you claim; however, the difference is that this structure is not enforced, universal, or standardized, as would be the case with my suggestion.

But they pretty much already are responsible for deciding what goes under their own TLDs. It's why countries like Tonga were selling domains under .to willy-nilly for a while.

By enforcing your structure upon other countries, you are actually removing their control over TLDs. But this is a point I don't understand well, because you go back and forth on just how much they get to decide about their "MLD" hierarchy.

I don't go back and forth. I've said all along that they would get to decide which ones they use, but they don't get the option not to use them at all. This isn't a change, though; it's already currently that way. Which TLDs are available is up to a private entity, but nobody can just decide not to use one.

Well, it is a change, because now you not allowing e.g. France to keep its current domain structure, which is (for the most part) just x.fr. There are domains like x.gouv.fr but that's mainly for official stuff.

Anyhow I think this horse has been beat at least to China by now… :wink:

People from France can register 'XX.com' instead of 'XX.fr' if they like. It's not a regulated structure. But those who do will have to change to 'XX.com.fr', and those with 'XX.fr' addresses will be forced to pick an MLD. Those with 'XX.gov.fr', incidentally, won't have to change a thing, most likely.

You realise that neither of you are saying anything you haven't said 200 times in your previous posts by now?

Indeed, hence the bit about the horse and China. :lol:

Um?

What, Zenn, You've never seen a chinese Spammer post in chinese before?