DNS is centralized in that there is a root zone that determines who is the canonical authority for each top level domain like .com or .world (and the registrar for each top level domain controls who controls each domain under them). But it’s also decentralized in the sense that everyone who controls a domain can assign any subdomains below that, and that anyone can choose to override the name resolving with their own local DNS server (or even a hosts file saved on the device).
The court case here is trying to override the official domain ownership records at specific DNS providers. The problem is that the intermediaries are being ordered by the courts not to follow the central authority.
Federation wouldn’t fit this model: we still want DNS to be canonical where everyone in the world agrees which domain resolves to which IP addresses.
I don’t think this question really makes sense.
DNS is centralized in that there is a root zone that determines who is the canonical authority for each top level domain like
.comor.world(and the registrar for each top level domain controls who controls each domain under them). But it’s also decentralized in the sense that everyone who controls a domain can assign any subdomains below that, and that anyone can choose to override the name resolving with their own local DNS server (or even a hosts file saved on the device).The court case here is trying to override the official domain ownership records at specific DNS providers. The problem is that the intermediaries are being ordered by the courts not to follow the central authority.
Federation wouldn’t fit this model: we still want DNS to be canonical where everyone in the world agrees which domain resolves to which IP addresses.