Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by geofft 2327 days ago
"Has been estimated" by others?

I'm not a fan of government-style lowest-bidder procurement for something as critical as .com. Among other things, I assume this involves operating the .com DNS servers, and it seems like the current operators are probably uniquely positioned to understand what makes that different from operating e.g. .party or .racing, what weird load patterns it sees, maybe even how much to pay the folks who know the hard parts to keep doing this, etc. Obviously it would be better for the world if Verisign were transparent about their operations and it could be moved, but for potentially $5/domain name/year, forcing the change doesn't seem valuable. (If it were $50, sure, it'd be worth thinking about.)
1 comments
fgonzag 2327 days ago
Critical infrastructure operated by a single company. That can't ever go wrong, provider redundancy is overrated.
link
geofft 2327 days ago
Not that I disagree, but wouldn't that require increasing the price even more so you could pay both companies?

I don't think the argument for "We're paying Verisign too much to be a single point of failure, so let's pay someone else who's never done it less to be a different single point of failure" really holds up.

link