I guess it makes sense to renew now for as many years as you can?
Save .org
311–320 of 355 posts
Re: Save .org
#312I've found it curious that while there's a relationship to trademark for US domains (the .com/.org/.net ones) in anti-cybersquatting law and UDRP, the USPTO doesn't have a mechanism to tie a domain to a mark.
This would be useful if we could register our marks and tie it to a domain, along with the standard application fee. At least for certain TLD's (.com would be a good candidate).
FWIW, I have a long history of dragging registrars through the mud to get clients' domains back. As of this time, I am in a dispute with GoDaddy over a domain that was deleted because GoDaddy sells a 'business registration' service. My client renewed this thinking it was for his expired domain, GoDaddy updated the WHOIS nameserver records and the site came back online. 45 days after the initial expiration GoDaddy dropped the domain without notice and a broker picked it up. I can't even go through UDRP on this because the client never registered their trademark.
Re: Save .org
#313Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 th…
Most of your points are valid. That's why I'm suggesting Mozilla support it. It would be a lot less "shoddy" if someone shepherded it. I think it is the right idea. The last point is only true because they aren't recognized, which recognition would immediately fix, therefore it is moot.
My concern would be that it's enough of a mess that Mozilla would have an easier time building an equivalent project from the ground up than reshaping this one into something reasonable.
I could be convinced that a community-based restructuring of DNS could be for the better. But I don't think that OpenNIC is the right project to base that around. The technical aspects of what they've built are not complicated, and much of that would need to be changed anyway to operate at scale; good governance is a lot harder to build.
Re: Save .org
#314Earlier quoted context omitted.
The dispute process is there to solve the kind of issues that do not exist in a fully automated domain name assignment systems. Fully automated system will only care about keys and cannot hand apple.com over from Apple Inc to Tim Apple because of his name.
You’ve got it backwards. When the keys are lost or stolen you’re SOL. The dispute resolution process would restore proper ownership via existing legal frameworks like it’s been done for hundreds of years.
> The dispute resolution process would restore proper ownership via existing legal frameworks like it’s been done for hundreds of years.
Not if the owner lost all proof of ownership, which is the assumption your argument is based on.
Re: Save .org
#315Some further background on what happened. I don't see how this can be interpreted as anything other than corruption, plain and simple. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2019/11/20/org_registry_sale_s... "Former ICANN CEO Fadi Chehade personally registered the domain name currently used by Ethos Capital in May and it was registered as a limited company in the US state of Delaware on May 14. That date is significant becaus…
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…
>>>Sadly, ICANN has little oversight
This is why the US Dept of Commerce should have never given up control
Re: Save .org
#316Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
Yes because that is what the internet needs, to have CloudFlare in control over more and more of it
Re: Save .org
#317Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which government? Critical to whom?
It possibly fits within the portfolio of the ITU (although I guess the UN is intergovernmental, rather than a government).
No, Hell no. The UN should not be involved in the Running of the Internet. That would be worse than ICANN by far
Re: Save .org
#318Earlier 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 may be useful to note that the US government transferred control of DNS to ICANN in September 2016. I searched HN, and this seems to be the biggest thread from back then: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12612033 At the time, consensus in the media seemed to be that this would have little effect. However, the debate was quite politicized, as the transfer to ICANN occurred towards the end of the Obama administr…
>>consensus in the media
There is a reason for this, the American media is laregly Anti-American today. They believe in idea of "American Imperialism" and that America is the cause of most of the worlds problem. Thus they believed anything was better than "Corrupt American Control" over the internet.
There were many many people that predicted bad outcomes from this transfer, most are starting to come true
Re: Save .org
#319Earlier quoted context omitted.
Browsers are the only ones actually willing to allow any change. If we wait for OSs to change nothing will ever happen. If it works well in browsers first then the OS will pick it up.
That's because there's no need for change. DNS works pretty well. There are various options to secure DNS, so that part of the DoH is also moot. Browsers should respect the OS instead of trying to circumvent it. Lastly, DNS is properly decentralized out of the box. I don't get that some people who argue for a decentralized internet also argue for DoH.
Similar to how email works and has various options to secure it but the reality is no end users were benefiting from it. How many OSs have enabled by default encrypted DNS? Browsers should primarily focus on providing the most secure and private browsing experience.
DNS is also not decentralized. It's centralised on ICANN and whatever company owns your TLD which is why this thread is here.
Re: Save .org
#320Earlier quoted context omitted.
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".
We’re here because a private company has taken over .ORG
I see what you’re saying in theory, but it can’t be cloudflare or a private company or else it’s more of the same.