You are overlooking a simple fact: Rich dont want to pay taxes.
You will always have problems when taking from the rich. 800 years ago It was barron rebellion (Magna Carta). Now its army of lawyers and gutted IRS. IMO War between taxman and rich is not entirely off table in future.
Call it DNSSEC or whatever, DNS needs more crypto. At present security of DNS rely on manual intervention, 2FA, "multi-perspective DNS lookups" and other rituals. That does not scale to 250M domains. Expect more hijacks until then.
Its not like Corporations can pay someone else, say US or China, to protect their assets and people. US totally wont fk EUs shit up for few hundreds of billions. No sir, countries can seize and kidnap without consequences, because muh sovereignty.
We do not consume energy. We consume goods and services which require energy to produce. This model completely ignores past and future advancments in energy efficieny.
Whos paying for safer buldings/milk/etc ? Could not the people who just benefited from these laws, give money directly to the businesses ? If people really want and can fund something they want, they can just pay the private sector directly. Why waste so much money by routing it through the gov ?
If one cant pay for the gov service/product one is consuming. Then he should be grateful for the forced charity not the gov. Gov created improvement in QoL for free, is not permanent.
Businesses did not make buildings safer just because someone told them to. It is naturally considered a bad idea to kill your customers. Businesses would always create an environment that generate more profit. Safer establishments are one of many ways. Businesses would _always_ stay ahead of any bureaucratic recommendations/requirements, because they have the incentives. Rather misguided/outdated laws are real problems, because gov lacks the (strong enough) incentive.
> The cost of low-trust in a modern economy is huge.
So you dont trust anyone unless gov tells you to ?
But how much of that is due to "fire code" ? Compare it with lawless parts of the world. You would find that horrible-ness is going down everywhere. China advanced only after having less laws. Whats common in all these instances ? Economic freedom. More economic freedom means more prosparity. "fire code" are only good at taking credit.
Browser vendors (specifically all DNS users) have the option. They can do it, if IANA fails at the job of being a dnsroot. Disruption is inversely proportional to consensus. If everyone do it, there is no disruption. Some disruption is unavoidable. Its fair price to pay for stable and solid global naming system.
Ultimately its about deciding who gets to own "x.y.z" string brand globally/contextlessly. World obviously need a single naming system. Either that or expect to have multiple owners to "google.com".
My suggestions are required otherwise why would someone build a global brand if ownership is not safe or guarnteed enough. Future is way more chaotic. Without crypto, a global naming system is not going to survive.
Anyone can fork DNS. Its just a (name, key) map. As long as its done with enough consensus, it can be done. Mismanagement of .com is serious enough to demand that kind of change.
Lets say .com gets mismanaged. Community is infurious. firefox/chrome/etc demands that . remap .com to new more trustable entity. If . does not. firefox/chrome/etc then remap . to new more trustable entity, because .com must be as trustable as ., because .com is that important. New . give back ownership of all tlds to their previous owners. Except for .com. .com goes to the more trustable entity as intended. New .com then does again similar import of all good xxx.com.
In this whole incident, no one loses the ownership of their names except for .com and possibly . .
Now no gov can touch *.com. Though its different for cctld. Those are owned by their respective govs. Same goes for gtld. But no one gets to mess with . .com .org .net.
You is firefox/chrome/etc. Yes you can. The ownership of .com is not as exclusive/protected as .xxx or xxx.com. Thus the firefox/chrome/etc can map it to anyone they feel. Considering so many high value .com subnames, .com can be transferred to neutral party or even dnsroot. USG do not own ".com" string. No one does. Just like ".".
No. You just map .com to another key with an agreement that new .com owner pre signs and map existing .com subs the right way. An unaware xxx.com does not need to do anything. As long as its done publically with a bang and enough consensus, disruption should be minimal.
Again this is unavoidable in any system that need trust. Thats why I like PoW DNS.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGMQZEIXBMs