Save .org • Hacker News Board

Re: Save .org

#281

Post by justinclift » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:32 PM UTC

byuu wrote: post #246

hultner wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Unfortunately, with at least Chrome and Firefox moving to DNS-over-HTTPS, they are the entities deciding on address resolution for 99% of average-user requests. 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 Go…

Wonder if this means Cloudflare - and/or the other termination points for DNS-over-HTTPS - could be an interesting place to start adding an alternative DNS resolution system?

Then it wouldn't need to be done by any browsers... if the DNS-over-HTTPS end point provider does the additional name resolution, it should "just work".

Re: Save .org

#282

Post by justinclift » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 10:37 PM UTC

nsomaru wrote: post #189

marvin wrote: post #185

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?

All of them? (for both questions) :)

Re: Save .org

#283

Post by jacob-malthouse » Sat, Nov 23, 2019, 11:09 PM UTC

savedotorg.org campaign now over 6000 letters in under 36 hours. over 200k visits.

Re: Save .org

#284

Post by vxNsr » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 12:07 AM UTC

troquerre wrote: post #265

byuu wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As stated by another person, yeah I'd want it to not overlap with the existing ICANN TLDs. Not too hard to do, and we could fix one of the bigger annoyances of DNS and correct the ordering: bsnes.byuu.org -> #newtld.byuu.bsnes, for example could work, or even just #byuu -> #byuu.bsnes and only have a sole TLD for it. I don't know how we stop squatters, maybe a one-time registration fee would be reasonable, but that w…

I mentioned Handshake in another comment. It has a good method for mitigating squatters. Names are won through a vickrey auction so they go to the highest bidder, and your funds are locked up for the duration of the auction (2 weeks) so it inhibits squatters from bidding on all the good names at once.

Still gives those with the most money the most domains...

Re: Save .org

#285

Post by mikedilger » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 12:18 AM UTC

Existing .org domains they can't move without overwhelming disruption, so most will just pay whatever it costs. But for the future, we need to move the Internet towards having peering relationships with TLDs such as OpenNIC.net.

Motivations:

* This issue of .org being sold for profit

* The fact that OpenNIC had to rename their TLD domains (e.g. .free to .libre) when ICANN created a colliding .free domain, demonstrating clearly that they are not peers.

Internet technologies such as browsers and operating systems should recognize ICANN and OpenNIC roots as peers, with DNSSEC to both. Should ICANN decide to create a .libre domain, existing browsers and operating systems should consider it a DNS attack and not recognize it. I think an organization like Mozilla ought to (1) flesh out any technical challenges, (2) support OpenNIC and (3) push for this.

Re: Save .org

#286

Post by Chlorus » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 12:25 AM UTC

vxNsr wrote: post #284

troquerre wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mentioned Handshake in another comment. It has a good method for mitigating squatters. Names are won through a vickrey auction so they go to the highest bidder, and your funds are locked up for the duration of the auction (2 weeks) so it inhibits squatters from bidding on all the good names at once.

Still gives those with the most money the most domains...

Wait til you find out who gets the most IPv4 addresses!

Re: Save .org

#287

Post by dang » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 12:47 AM UTC

sgt wrote: post #241

dang wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We've banned this account for repeatedly violating the site guidelines. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Seems like he posted a lame joke. The appropriate response would be for other users to downvote him. I've seen his other comments and he'll regularly be downvoted, but I think you're overreacting a bit. Perhaps you should stick to making sure HN runs, and aside from that mind your own business?

Note that word 'repeatedly'. When people post like https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20958824 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20902321 and ignore our requests to stop breaking the guidelines, we ban them. If we didn't, the guidelines wouldn't mean much.

Sadly, it's my business to deal with flamewars, personal attacks, trolling, and other abuses of HN. If flames are allowed to burn this place to a crisp, HN won't be HN anymore. And eventually there wouldn't be anything worth running or anyone to run it for.

Re: Save .org

#288

Post by duskwuff » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 1:15 AM UTC

mikedilger wrote: post #285

Existing .org domains they can't move without overwhelming disruption, so most will just pay whatever it costs. But for the future, we need to move the Internet towards having peering relationships with TLDs such as OpenNIC.net. Motivations: * This issue of .org being sold for profit * The fact that OpenNIC had to rename their TLD domains (e.g. .free to .libre) when ICANN created a colliding .free domain, demonstrati…

OpenNIC is a poorly managed amateur project, built on shoddy infrastructure that was thrown together in the early 2000s -- it's completely incapable of acting as any kind of peer to the ICANN root. In particular:

- Their resolvers are not consistently available. Many of them are hosted on public cloud hosts (which also raises some questions about their security), and outages are not uncommon.

- It's not clear that they support DNSSEC, or that they have any plan to do so.

- The governance of the OpenNIC-specific zones that they offer is even shoddier than the DNS root itself. Most of them have no registry/registrar distinction, no domain transfer process, no WHOIS services, and sketchy to nonexistent abuse policies.

- Since OpenNIC TLDs cannot be resolved on the public Internet, it's impossible to issue a SSL certificate for one.

Re: Save .org

#289

Post by OccamsMirror » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 1:46 AM UTC

byuu wrote: post #247

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…

As stated by another person, yeah I'd want it to not overlap with the existing ICANN TLDs. Not too hard to do, and we could fix one of the bigger annoyances of DNS and correct the ordering: bsnes.byuu.org -> #newtld.byuu.bsnes, for example could work, or even just #byuu -> #byuu.bsnes and only have a sole TLD for it. I don't know how we stop squatters, maybe a one-time registration fee would be reasonable, but that w…

The simple answer to that is prices based on the country's GDP.

us.whatever: $100 mz.whatever: $0.80

Re: Save .org

#290

Post by nine_k » Sun, Nov 24, 2019, 2:00 AM UTC

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…

(1) There exists a blockchain-based, decentralized DNS lookalike: https://handshake.org/

(2) Every major OS has has a way to plug an alternative DNS resolver (except maybe iOS), and every major browser has a control to switch off the DNS-over-https resolver. With any goodwill from the major mobile OS vendors, a new resolver could be rolled out to 99% of consumer devices or so, and work transparently.

(3) A new name resolution system should not clash with the DNS namespace. It could allow to copy established DNS domains (not parked) to the new namespace for a nominal fee.

(4) Many DNS tricks, like load-balancing, could go away. Running your own name server can become harder. The transition, should it occur, would not be fast.