PR #277 and #276 were closed, as were Issues #270 and #274 - and the PR were not implemented.

Were these a problem that needed to be solved? Would the ability to define an include URI or referral to another resource with deeper detail be something that could solve this?

This is floating an idea to perhaps help with scaling challenges related to the PSL, where there are intricate registry namespaces within the ICANN section of the PSL.

Specifically using the .NAME TLD, with its many surnames that can have third level registrations, but there are current and future namespaces within an ICANN/IANA section where there may be substantial and intricate subspace that the registry defines, and users might benefit from having that namespace being fully articulated for the respective properties, as is done in the PSL.

The problem that comes from such situations, is that the ICANN section might exponentially grow (#277 proposed adding nearly 20k lines to PSL) by doing this.

This ties to namespaces which have massively defined internal structures defined by the TLD administrator, such as .POST #270, .US #274 and #276 , .NAME #277, .BR or .JP (certainly others exist)

In working on ideas for Roadmap discussions, scaling comes into focus as something that merits discussion, and this is a roadmap idea to feed into #671