Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Save .org

savedotorg.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#181

Post by fauigerzigerk »

zokier wrote: post #175
fauigerzigerk wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this particular case, the problem is not that individual domains can be traded at market prices though. The problem is that organisations have to rent their domains from a central authority that can hike the rent for an entire TLD to some fantasy price. So the hierarchical structure of DNS is clearly what creates an opportunity for corruption and extortion. And let's not forget that DNS is ultimately a global issu…

> And let's not forget that DNS is ultimately a global issue, which means that the rule of law cannot be taken for granted. I think this strongly points towards ccTLDs being the best solution. It is very difficult to get all the different countries to agree on common rules/governance for the legacy TLDs, but if everyone gets their own independent corner then that should be easier to get agreements on. Dividing the co…

I think ccTLDs don't work so well in a globalised world. Many internet services are not country specific, and ccTLDs sort of put you in the local business category.

Re: Save .org

#183

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

Waterluvian wrote: post #106
foxhop wrote: post #51

I think I give up on the Internet that we know today. I'm too tired to fight anymore. Monopoly ISPs with data caps, DNS rent seeking, the walled gardens, the internet of shit where I cannot walk down my street without getting recorded by every house with a "ring". I'm done with it. I don't want to partake anymore, I don't want to fight it anymore, I don't want to care anymore. Let the Google's and Facebook's have the…

You mean the death of the nerds-only Internet (a different kind of walled garden). There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet". There's certainly many problems with something this gargantuan, but I get very skeptical when people nostalgize and eulogize "the good old days" of anything. I'll add, I say this with empathy to you…

> There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet".

Could you explain how you got to that conclusion?

It would be impossible for non-tech-savvy people to share things on the internet if there were no omni-present surveillance, manipulation, and centralization, because ... ?

Re: Save .org

#184

Post by necovek »

Waterluvian wrote: post #106
foxhop wrote: post #51

I think I give up on the Internet that we know today. I'm too tired to fight anymore. Monopoly ISPs with data caps, DNS rent seeking, the walled gardens, the internet of shit where I cannot walk down my street without getting recorded by every house with a "ring". I'm done with it. I don't want to partake anymore, I don't want to fight it anymore, I don't want to care anymore. Let the Google's and Facebook's have the…

You mean the death of the nerds-only Internet (a different kind of walled garden). There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet". There's certainly many problems with something this gargantuan, but I get very skeptical when people nostalgize and eulogize "the good old days" of anything. I'll add, I say this with empathy to you…

I agree that "Internet" today is full of creative expression of millions of people able to do that mostly due the expansion it has seen into non-technical crowd. And that's brilliant.

Unfortunately, getting to their creations is ultimately harder: eg. searches for anything will now throw you at some lame stuff on pinterest, which will attempt to lure you into signing up just to find out if they have what you are looking for.

Basically, ability to really "browse" that humongous web is now gone. And most of those creations never reach their intended audience.

Re: Save .org

#185

Post by marvin »

nieve wrote: post #170
sytelus wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ICANN having little oversights is not an accident. It’s corrupt current and past leaders have ensured that. This organization is supposed to be non-profit international organization. If you ask me “who controls Internet”? it’s these guys. They have managed to convert ICANN into a perpetual personal wealth fund for friends and families.

The writing was on the wall when the board decided they weren't getting what they wanted from the at-large constituency & direct elections and shut them down, in doing so completely blowing off the Memorandum of Understanding. It's a bit surprising that it's taken so long to hit .org directly, it's a really obvious target if you want to find ways to turn an ICANN position into cash. Full disclosure, I was one of thos…

To me, this seems like a good case for government intervention. Domain names are critical infrastructure at this point.

Re: Save .org

#186

Post by necovek »

zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #183
Waterluvian wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean the death of the nerds-only Internet (a different kind of walled garden). There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet". There's certainly many problems with something this gargantuan, but I get very skeptical when people nostalgize and eulogize "the good old days" of anything. I'll add, I say this with empathy to you…

> There is so much creativity shared via the Internet by non-tech-savvy people that just wouldn't have been possible via the "old Internet". Could you explain how you got to that conclusion? It would be impossible for non-tech-savvy people to share things on the internet if there were no omni-present surveillance, manipulation, and centralization, because ... ?

I think their point was that "old internet" was harder to use as a publishing platform than the new one, not necessarily that what we got was the best evolution, but that it has enabled non-techies to publish more.

Re: Save .org

#187

Post by notahacker »

oefrha wrote: post #172
tldmanagement wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Posting from a throwaway account. I worked at one of the main TLDs for years and was on one of the ICANN boards and got to know the industry well. It is well know amongst the domain name community that ICANN is a poorly run organization, whose directors have in recent years have used their position of leadership to lead decisions from which they are afterwards benefiting themselves economically, in many cases by rush…

It seems to me that running an NIC for a major TLD almost has zero marginal cost: for each domain, you automatically interface with ICANN once in a while to update registration info, then serve some NS and associated A/AAAA records. So it’s kind of surprising to me that $10/yr is already a non-profit price. Am I missing something?

The $10 a year includes the markup of a profit making domain registrar which has marketing and support costs.

This article suggests Public Interest Registry's costs for third party technical services were about half their revenue, with the beneficiary of the rest of the funds being the Internet Society https://domainnamewire.com/2019/10/28/pir-org-slashes-regist...

Still, you can see why those kind of margins and the ability to raise prices were an attractive combination to private equity

Re: Save .org

#188

Post by gorgoiler »

Is there an effective direct action that can shake ICANN into some sense?

I don’t mean this as a serious suggestion, but as an example we could have a “drop dot org” month where resolvers refuse to forward queries to the ORG nameservers.

Not a great example because it would have a pretty negative impact on the domain holders, and no impact on ICANN. Can anyone think of a better example, equivalent to saying to ICANN “if you go ahead with this then we’re going to boycott dot org in a way that makes it worthless”?

Re: Save .org

#189

Post by nsomaru »

marvin wrote: post #185
nieve wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The writing was on the wall when the board decided they weren't getting what they wanted from the at-large constituency & direct elections and shut them down, in doing so completely blowing off the Memorandum of Understanding. It's a bit surprising that it's taken so long to hit .org directly, it's a really obvious target if you want to find ways to turn an ICANN position into cash. Full disclosure, I was one of thos…

To me, this seems like a good case for government intervention. Domain names are critical infrastructure at this point.

Which government? Critical to whom?

Re: Save .org

#190

Post by nsomaru »

zokier wrote: post #176
cobookman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure I agree. If FF & Chrome both supported it...it'd be in effect in Just look how quickly DoH is being rolled out, or Google's QUIC. Realistically if Google, Mozilla, Cloudflare, Apple, Microsoft, and a few others agree that this move is bad, and wanted to stand up a new .org TLD...they could, and I don't believe it'd be illegal (IANAL).

Web is only small part of internet

Yes, but most of the internet is exposed to users via the web anyways. OSs would need to follow suit, sure — to make everything that’s not a browser work so that the alternative lookup mechanism is used instead of traditional DNS. How long do you think that would take? Not too long methinks.
Post reply on HN