241–250 of 355 posts
Where should I mail a bomb?
We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
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.
To be honest I don't see this happening any time soon with the major commercial OSes. But in Linux you can install some programs to e.g. send all your DNS queries through a certain encrypted tunnel, and nearly every application installed on that box will happily use that tunnel.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Has the broader group thought about just buying their own tld? With a better governance model.
Would it matter? You're already locked into years, maybe decades, of brand building. You'd still need to redirect your old .org indefinitely. .ORG should be properly managed and regulated, we shouldn't need to attempt to rebuild something because ICANN is corrupt and Internet Society is selling out non profits they promised to serve.
Do you even know how many accounts have that email address as either the primary, or backup/recovery email?
An email address is central to identity management these days.
Lose a long established domain, and you might lose access to most of your other internet accounts, especially the ones you don't use every day and are hard to remember.
I mentioned in my last comment about this being outright corruption by the Americans involved. Now it is time to mention the 1 positive that the USA has that other countries(visibly) don't: > The willingness and ability to sue as a collective .org is a domain used by everyone from Wikipedia, UN, Debian and your national dog shelter. Private Equity cares only about one thing: making money. Anybody with a toe in the fi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To me, this seems like a good case for government intervention. Domain names are critical infrastructure at this point.
Which government? Critical to whom?
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…
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.
I would agree with you in principle however, in which case there's an even more impossible goal: get Microsoft, Apple, Google, and every Linux/BSD distro to agree to a new OS-level alternate domain name resolver that functions out of the box. And also stop Google and Mozilla from rolling out browser-level DoH.
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 don't know how we stop squatters, maybe a one-time registration fee would be reasonable, but that would be discriminatory as $100 would be trivial for developers in the US, and impossible for service workers in Mozambique that just want a personal website.
It's not as though .com/.net/.org (and heck, even a lot of the new gTLDs) aren't absolutely filled to the brim with squatters already.
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…
How about we just use different domains? .org is gone, use .com or .net or any of the other hundred of domains.
Changing the domain of a site is very effective at killing a site, and a business or organisation, because all existing links to it break, emails to it break.
And if you give up the domain, it will usually get squatted quickly, so the links and emails carry on working - they just go to the squatter's site instead.
There is no way to update the majority of links to your site, if it's been around for a while. You can search for links and ask other site operaters to update, but it just doesn't happen much, and it's also extremely expensive to do when measured in time to write to thousands of site operators individually.
And when you have to change the name at the same time (because your name is squatted on other TLDs), you're effectively deleting the name recognition, literature, old podcasts, matching name you already have on Twitter, etc.
If you had a good name for a long time, chances are you will struggle to find another one like it, and even if you do, most people will think the new name is something else.
On top of that, your email is probably linked to your .org, and people aren't going to stop sending to that for years, no matter how much you tell people to via other channels. You can't know everywhere your email address and main web address are being kept by someone to use later.
And wherever there is a long-standing email domain, there are probably thousands of internet accounts that have that email as their primary or backup/recovery, which you will need to keep if you don't want to start losing access to other accounts. Updating those is very difficult unless you have been extremely diligent at keeping a database of every account you ever created. In practice, even very diligent organisations who attempt to do this don't succeed because accounts tend to be created bydifferent people.
Perhaps in extreme startup land where people start a new business from scratch every couple of years, and pay a lot in SaaS costs so hiked domain fees may sseem relatively cheap, this might not seem to matter.
But many .orgs have been around for decades, and are low budget but very well esablished.
Any many other .orgs are individuals, with email and thousands of online accounts linked to their domain.
There is no "just" to a domain name change.
Is .org really a valid way to verify legitimacy of a non-governmental organization? Should we be looking for another solution here or is this the right hill to die on?