Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How We Saved Dot Org

eff.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–156 of 156 posts

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#151

Post by BlueTemplar »

nsajko wrote: post #121
BlueTemplar wrote: post #109

Hmm, there's still the issue that both ISOC and ICANN are located in the USA, and – unless they have been granted super-special status by the UN – are subject to USA laws. As long that is the case, we have an "USAnet", rather than a real Internet. I can see two ways to deal with this issue : 1.) A UN-funded organization located on "UN soil", ideally far away from the biggest powers (but then close enough to Internet…

So you want to make ISOC or ICANN even more independent/powerful than they already are, to take away the single thing that reined them in this time?

The current issue seems to be happening because they are able to sell .org.

My version wouldn't be allowed to do that.

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#152

Post by BlueTemplar »

estaseuropano wrote: post #116
BlueTemplar wrote: post #109

Hmm, there's still the issue that both ISOC and ICANN are located in the USA, and – unless they have been granted super-special status by the UN – are subject to USA laws. As long that is the case, we have an "USAnet", rather than a real Internet. I can see two ways to deal with this issue : 1.) A UN-funded organization located on "UN soil", ideally far away from the biggest powers (but then close enough to Internet…

While I agree with your premise of a neutral organisation free speech doesn't work. It never has and never will. The internet has proven that a lawless space should not be tolerated. Nazis, Islamism, rape porn, child abuse, slave sales, hitmen, ... You don't want the mob to rule the web. The question would then be if nations can find some common ground of what is unacceptable (so e.g. insulting the king of Thailand s…

Sorry, maybe I should have said "The (regular) Web" since that's what we are talking about.

AFAIK a lot of these not-web/"dark web"(?)–sites are available on the Internet via tools like Freenet (and Tor?)

> The question would then be if nations can find some common ground of what is unacceptable

This is just not going to happen. There are 195 countries in the world. They can't even agree on whether women have the same rights as men or whether it is legal to draw images of the Muslim prophet (So, depending on what you mean by the term, "Islamism" might just be the legal system of some countries, as 35 of them apply more or less the Sharia).

Or another example : the USA is supposed to be a single country, yet in some of its states sex between full blown adults and teenagers of a certain age is legal, while in others a teenager becomes a sex offender by merely owning photos of him/herself naked !

(And how would you deal with potential new countries that might not agree to the previous 'common ground' ?)

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#153

Post by telesilla »

Please donate. If you are a business, likely you get other businesses offering you end of year gifts. Decline and ask for a donation to the EFF. Our future to to do business online depends on their ability to fight these things for us.

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#154

Post by geofft »

tialaramex wrote: post #148
geofft wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like saying "Whether people like it or not the King of France is sovereign." Why is the operation of the DNS a commercial endeavor, and what would go wrong if it were not be the case? There are a huge number of examples of successful internet infrastructure projects that are non-commercial, perhaps with commercial participants or sponsors but not commercial themselves. (The IETF, Let's Encrypt, and Linux all…

The IETF probably isn't a useful example because it's a fairly strange thing. You probably couldn't (and shouldn't try to) do very much else that way. It's doubtful whether for example it constitutes an "organisation". It has no formal legal existence whatsoever, so it can't own anything, including money, nor enter into any sort of contract with anybody, it doesn't have members, and the staff who make things happen a…

Who owns ietf.org etc.? I guess the answer is the Internet Society, which created the Public Interest Registry which currently owns .org (and which was the entity that intended to sell PIR to Ethos Capital), so maybe the IETF was a bad example for that reason too :)

Re: How We Saved Dot Org

#156

Post by patman21 »

RamRodification wrote: post #137
ethbr0 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://supporters.eff.org/donate https://supporters.eff.org/shop Testing this new A tag I heard about.

Wow I was hoping to grab something from the shop but that's some ugly stuff. We have casual dress code at work so I would love a classy EFF-themed T-shirt. Most of these have that juvenile meme-y/merch-ey/joke style though so that's a pass. Plain "EFF" like on the "EFF Label Pin" on a grey fabric would have been nice. Doesn't have to be "cool" (?) just because it's on a T-shirt. Edit: Actually just give me the Onesie…

Agreed. They could have spend ~1/2 as much time on these designs and they would be wearable for our demographic.
Post reply on HN