81–90 of 132 posts
I'm really considering abandoning my firstlast.com domain (used for email and personal blog) and transitioning to firstlast.ccTLD so that I can stop giving Verisign money.
This is not going to end. ICANN has revealed their hand -- they are corrupt. But we don't actually need them. What we do need is a "Let's Encrypt" style initiative to replace the DNS roots in their entirety, run by competent, principled people. It would be difficult, but the people who are pissed off about this have clout at Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla (the web browser gatekeepers) and might actually be able to pu…
> run by competent, principled people. That is a root cause of a lot of problem. Whatever org you build eventually honest competent people will be replaced by callous assholes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To be clear, I don't think it will come to this. But right now, ICANN believes that they can get away with anything, and have started to act on that belief. We should begin the process of scaring them back on track. Start brainstorming. Start writing IETF proposals that prominently feature removing ICANN from the loop. Come up with ideas for migrating current domain owners to the new system. Build prototypes. Start p…
NameCoin [1] is an emerging consensus-based decentralized DNS system. Any replacement will need to facilitate existing domains, it could be implemented as an add-on to existing resolvers like bind or dnsmasq. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namecoin
I don't think it's a good idea to toss in an ambitious redesign of the internet name system when it's not even clear that we can get everybody to agree to just stare down ICANN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'd call, without the slightest of doubt, the latter to be squatting. Maybe ICANN should specify a shorter internal lab domain (There's already .local for your use, which I would think is plenty short, even adding a prefix), but I would most certainly say that given there's only ~50,000 2 or 3-letter domains, the price for one should be high enough to make an individual flinch.
Come on. Squatting is when you're doing som with the purpose of reselling. If you just were lucky and registered a 3 letter domain back in the 90s, why is it anyone else business? Let it be. I have got a 5-letter domain myself that I keep a website of mine that never worked out online mostly for portfolio and because I really like the domain name. I've no plans to sell the domain or free it so others can register, ev…
Squatting isn't just with the purpose of reselling. It's an overloaded phrase, from "living in someone's building illegally" to "Holding onto a good with the intent of depriving others of it's use, driving the price up (particularly if you control a large portion of the limited resource)", which are, in many ways, exact opposites (The hobo sleeping in an abandoned property and the landlord underutilizing that property so they can benefit from the scarcity of land are both "squatting") I'd say that the mild foresight that 3 letter domains are useful and then holding on to one because, even though you're barely using it, you don't want to give it up - Yeah, that's squatting. It's a minor dick move, though I'd say that dumb stuff like littering newspapers or not tipping your waiter is probably the greater offense.
I'm also fine with how things are now, because I don't have any illusions that ICANN as currently stands would put that additional revenue to good use, but I'd like to see this treated... well, I'd compare it to water rights, but those are broken just as badly.
I know very little about the technical and business side of DNS and Domain Registrars. That being said, have things actually gotten more expensive for them to operate? I'm pretty confident the answer is no and these price increases just reflect the need for a handful of entities to charge more for an essential service with no viable alternative.
If anything costs should have gone down. Bandwidth is cheaper, and processing power has gone up. However, even with that DNS has been pretty distributed by design. Lowering system load at the top level to begin with. Like some country code domains are managed by a pretty small number people to begin with. So it's not like you need a large amount of staff either.
I have mixed feelings about this, the increase by ICANN is outrageous, but at the same time NameCheap are positioning themselves as heros here, and I've been burnt multiple times by the byzantine way their renewal system tries to fool you into paying for the wrong thing (put 'registration period as 10 years? suuure, we won't tell you you're paying for 10 years of privacy guard over 1 year of domain registration thoug…
After that DNSSEC outage the other day with no notification or anything from them before or afterwards, I've been slowly moving my domains away from them. If they really wanted to fight back they could do a lot more than just post on their blog. Why don't they fund ICANN like Verisign is and maybe ICANN will start to listen?
Bear with me for a moment: I firmly believe that in order for good .com domains to be available for a smaller price the registry fee should be far higher. The reason for that is speculation: even though a .com registration is dirty cheap, getting a decent .com domain is very expensive because for many companies it is worth it to keep the domains parked, and when someone wants to buy one of them it gets very expensive…
Of course at that price point, HTTPS should be the default and the extra profits should go somewhere other than ICANN.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Come on. Squatting is when you're doing som with the purpose of reselling. If you just were lucky and registered a 3 letter domain back in the 90s, why is it anyone else business? Let it be. I have got a 5-letter domain myself that I keep a website of mine that never worked out online mostly for portfolio and because I really like the domain name. I've no plans to sell the domain or free it so others can register, ev…
You know, I do agree and respect that, but I also see that these are a (artificial) constrained resource - There's value in them. They're a constrained public good, and prices should be charged appropriately - And yeah, I think that the really short domain names should be $XXXX per year to renew, if not more. Squatting isn't just with the purpose of reselling. It's an overloaded phrase, from "living in someone's buil…
There's damage to the internet from "evicting" people from these domains. Broken links, etc. Sure, that doesn't apply in this "intentionally unused" case, but... who's currently incurring what damages? Why try to squeeze more dollars out of folks with these domain names? I'm suspicious of ideas to replicate the physical real-estate model of pushing people out through raising rents that seems to just benefit landlords and the already-wealthy.
This is not going to end. ICANN has revealed their hand -- they are corrupt. But we don't actually need them. What we do need is a "Let's Encrypt" style initiative to replace the DNS roots in their entirety, run by competent, principled people. It would be difficult, but the people who are pissed off about this have clout at Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla (the web browser gatekeepers) and might actually be able to pu…
> run by competent, principled people. That is a root cause of a lot of problem. Whatever org you build eventually honest competent people will be replaced by callous assholes.
This is not going to end. ICANN has revealed their hand -- they are corrupt. But we don't actually need them. What we do need is a "Let's Encrypt" style initiative to replace the DNS roots in their entirety, run by competent, principled people. It would be difficult, but the people who are pissed off about this have clout at Google, Microsoft, and Mozilla (the web browser gatekeepers) and might actually be able to pu…