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

211–220 of 355 posts

Re: Save .org

#211

Post by zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC »

necovek wrote: post #186
zAy0LfpBZLC8mAC wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Which then would be completely besides the point?!

"It's bad that X has happened!"

"But Y has happened, too, and that is good!"

Yeah, so what? Unless Y happening is predicated on X happening, that is just completely irrelevant to the discussion?

Re: Save .org

#212

Post by clarry »

oefrha wrote: post #207
byuu wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

> The really hard, unsolvable part is the unwillingness of the browser vendors to support an alternative domain name system. If Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all supported a new TLD outside of ICANN's control as a public service (let's call it "Let's Resolve" which would offer free domains and would be funded through donations), it would be very successful. Not sure I understand your proposal. Say every single browser…

I think by "TLD outside of ICANN's control", GP meant a unique TLD that (currently) does not exist under ICANN. So it's not going to be byuu.org under ICANN vs byuu.org under LR, it's going to be byuu.lr (under LR) versus byuu.org (under ICANN)?

Re: Save .org

#213

Post by oefrha »

clarry wrote: post #212
oefrha wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The really hard, unsolvable part is the unwillingness of the browser vendors to support an alternative domain name system. If Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all supported a new TLD outside of ICANN's control as a public service (let's call it "Let's Resolve" which would offer free domains and would be funded through donations), it would be very successful. Not sure I understand your proposal. Say every single browser…

I think by "TLD outside of ICANN's control", GP meant a unique TLD that (currently) does not exist under ICANN. So it's not going to be byuu.org under ICANN vs byuu.org under LR, it's going to be byuu.lr (under LR) versus byuu.org (under ICANN)?

Yeah I misread. Then it's gonna be subject to good old squatting and hoarding (vastly more so if free) as I mentioned, and not really solve anything.

Re: Save .org

#214

Post by oefrha »

pteraspidomorph wrote: post #210
oefrha wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The really hard, unsolvable part is the unwillingness of the browser vendors to support an alternative domain name system. If Chrome, Firefox, and Safari all supported a new TLD outside of ICANN's control as a public service (let's call it "Let's Resolve" which would offer free domains and would be funded through donations), it would be very successful. Not sure I understand your proposal. Say every single browser…

You probably need a system that allows both roots to function together. Maybe a different URL scheme: http: and https: use ICANN, httplr: and httplrs: use LR If not specified, browser tries LR first, then falls back on ICANN. Doesn't feel as solid to me, but they could also register a placeholder TLD that would be use for redirecting requests to LR, or the other way around: google.com.lrns would tell the browser to r…

Phishers would love that.

Re: Save .org

#215

Post by clarry »

oefrha wrote: post #213
clarry wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think by "TLD outside of ICANN's control", GP meant a unique TLD that (currently) does not exist under ICANN. So it's not going to be byuu.org under ICANN vs byuu.org under LR, it's going to be byuu.lr (under LR) versus byuu.org (under ICANN)?

Yeah I misread. Then it's gonna be subject to good old squatting and hoarding (vastly more so if free) as I mentioned, and not really solve anything.

I agree. As long as there's scarcity, there's someone trying to exploit it.

I think it could be better to just accept that unique global names are not a great idea, and start identifying parties by certificates rather than name. Various chain of trust & reputation type arrangements can be used to ensure people won't confuse Their Bank (certificate issued by/for Their Bank) for Their Bank (certificate issued by & for scammer in Ukraine). Legit entities will have every reason to include information that minimizes likelihood of confusion.

Come on, I can have more than one James Smith in my phone's contact book too.. let's stop fighting over names.

Re: Save .org

#216

Post by zadler »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #74
zadler wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More likely, time to move to governed cyber communities, where taxes will go towards providing infrastructure and maintaining rights.

Asking for more government (analog in this case) is just kicking the can down the road. Your tiny cool self-regulating community, will either die, be eaten by Facebook or become Facebook.

It’s not about about being cool or making a hip new website. The point is that people won’t choose to pay for services when free ones exist. It requires a monetary obligation in the form of taxes. Countries don’t function because everyone decides they’d like to pay for the infrastructure that benefits everyone. They function because that money is collected in the form of taxes.

Re: Save .org

#217

Post by hk__2 »

devit wrote: post #125

How about getting the browser and OS makers together to use an alternate DNS system? It only needs Google, Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft to agree and ICANN can be made irrelevant overnight.

> It only needs Google, Mozilla, Apple and Microsoft to agree and ICANN can be made irrelevant overnight.

Of course not. The Web is only a small part of the Internet. DNS is used by way more services than Web browsers.

Re: Save .org

#218

Post by hultner »

byuu wrote: post #198
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…

The process of mapping name=IP is not remotely technically difficult, and I'd dare say most people reading this message could implement the backend to such a system in a few days. Setting up the peering replication and nameservers around the world is considerably harder, but it's definitely not a $10 billion+ problem (the current value of registrars and certificate authorities.) A startup funded by YC could handle th…

Browsers shouldn't be the entity deciding on address resolution, a domain system bound only to the web/httpx would be a huge leap backwards. This should be up to the os and whatever names resolution the os provides should be happily accepted by any network program, be it a browser, email client, ssh, irc or something completely different.

Re: Save .org

#219

Post by koheripbal »

carapace wrote: post #43

As if this couldn't get crazier: > Goldman Sachs & Co LLC. is serving as financial adviser to both the Internet Society and PIR. https://www.bizjournals.com/washington/news/2019/11/15/resto...

This is what they do - finance deals. This is as notable as saying Wells Fargo issued their home mortgage.

Re: Save .org

#220

Post by koboll »

tim333 wrote: post #195
input_sh wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's no higher authority than ICANN as far as domain names are concerned. That's why the letter says "help stop the sale", not "stop the sale".

Well, there's the US government. They could pass a law in theory at any rate. One of the arguments for allowing self regulating bodies like ICANN is they do a decent job but if that ceases to be the case it's kind of the governments job to step in.

This campaign needs a punchier call to action. It should be something like "Tell the New York state attorney general to prosecute Fadi Chehade for self-dealing if this sale goes through". This movement is lacking stakes. People need to go to prison for this.
Post reply on HN