FWIW we have recently acquired funding to demonstrate that GNS can handle large size zones by migrating TLD zones (available through AXFR for now, the number of zones supporting hat is, eh, marginal [1]) to GNS which delegate back into DNS (using [2]).
This allows GNS users to (partially) circumvent the root and manually manage their local root namespace as envisioned for GNS [3].
We think that shipping default configurations and allowing users to modify/enhance that locally is how governance should look like from the user's perspective.
If you want ICANN as default -> use the ICANN default configuration... if you need to override a censored/censoring registry, you can do that too... etc
FWIW we have recently acquired funding to demonstrate that GNS can handle large size zones by migrating TLD zones (available through AXFR for now, the number of zones supporting hat is, eh, marginal [1]) to GNS which delegate back into DNS (using [2]).
This allows GNS users to (partially) circumvent the root and manually manage their local root namespace as envisioned for GNS [3].
We think that shipping default configurations and allowing users to modify/enhance that locally is how governance should look like from the user's perspective. If you want ICANN as default -> use the ICANN default configuration... if you need to override a censored/censoring registry, you can do that too... etc
[1] https://jpmens.net/2021/05/18/dns-open-zone-data/ [2] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schanzen-gns-21.html#n... [3] https://www.ietf.org/archive/id/draft-schanzen-gns-21.html#n...