The way to analyze whether something is centralized is to look at its namespace. Federation is not decentralization. You're not a first class speaker if your name can simply be taken away.
I do remember AlterNIC and other such attempts, but they aren't germane to decentralization. Being able to switch to an alternative federation root is still federation.
The point is that one is free to run one's own root if need be.
Similarly to the post you replied to - centralisation of name resolution is by market choice, not technological lock. The incentive is for everyone to coalesce around one service though.
Sure, just as one can keep their own /etc/hosts. But we're talking about coordination between groups of people, and the power structures that result therein. An alternative root just creates a new instance with the same structure.
> centralisation of name resolution is by market choice, not technological lock. The incentive is for everyone to coalesce around one service though
The technological deficiency creates the market incentive towards centralization. If one could easily remap (eg ycombinator.com -> ycombinator.com.icann), DNS would have had a fighting chance. But what we really want is the ability to reconcile-merge differing perspectives, rather than competing all-or-nothing trees.
Nobody cares that something is centralized either. There is no preference either way.
Simple hierarchical systems like DNS have been faster, easier to implement, and have scaled better. If someone can make decentralized alternatives competitive they have a chance.
The bottom line to always remember is that 99% of your users, even technical ones, don't care one bit how it works. They only care that it does.
