This article is from 2011...how has ICE used this power since then?
[deleted]
US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
31–40 of 108 posts
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#32Can someone explain me why ICE has the power to enforce intellectual property laws on the internet? What does this have to do with immigration enforcement? Can ICE enforce other seemingly irrelevant laws? E.g. can ICE bust e.g. drug users, prostitution etc?
The “C” in ICE is for “customs.” I imagine domains fall under the purview of import/export laws.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#33In more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.
The only way an alternate TLD registrar will ever take off is if you get the people who own the current root servers on board. And the only way that will happen is if you figure out how they can make money from owning and operating the root servers. My guess is that if you create a blockchain for registering DNS, and only the current registrars can issue coins on said blockchain, you might have a solution they would…
And more importantly than letting you register, it avoids a .com, .net domain getting one of these on a landing page https://www.justice.gov/sites/default/files/styles/width_12/...
This has been the story for many sites, where domains are seized even if owned by a non-US person/company, with an order to the TLD that operates in the US. With a distributed DNS system like Handshake, 'in theory' this shouldn't be possible, since it would require multiple nodes to alter a domain's DNS records vs. a central TLD authority which has to abide by US law.
It's all interesting, but it still seems we are ways off from the DNS backbone (& my browser) operating with this kind of DNS architecture. It even appears it's becoming easier to take down a domain, not at the TLD/registrar level, but more so at the hosting level (e.g. Parler)
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#34Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way an alternate TLD registrar will ever take off is if you get the people who own the current root servers on board. And the only way that will happen is if you figure out how they can make money from owning and operating the root servers. My guess is that if you create a blockchain for registering DNS, and only the current registrars can issue coins on said blockchain, you might have a solution they would…
Those servers are only necessary for the ICANN tlds and those will continue to act as they do today, even in a Handshake future. With Handshake, you run your own authoritative server (or use a hosted one) for your own name and that authoritative server's information will be obtainable on chain. No middle-man, no rent seeking.
I understand how handshake works. What I'm saying is that getting my mom to point her DNS servers at an alternate server is a non-starter. You have to get the root servers on board to carry all TLDs or most people will never find them.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#35In more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.
The only way an alternate TLD registrar will ever take off is if you get the people who own the current root servers on board. And the only way that will happen is if you figure out how they can make money from owning and operating the root servers. My guess is that if you create a blockchain for registering DNS, and only the current registrars can issue coins on said blockchain, you might have a solution they would…
Is it the root servers that you need to get on board, or the publishers of the publications that most people use, or the operating system publishers?
For instance, if the browser makers all started resolving certain TLDs via an alternate network, then people could start publishing websites using domains managed by that network without needing to engage with the root DNS servers at all.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#36Can someone explain me why ICE has the power to enforce intellectual property laws on the internet? What does this have to do with immigration enforcement? Can ICE enforce other seemingly irrelevant laws? E.g. can ICE bust e.g. drug users, prostitution etc?
One of the main reasons that ICE believes they can exert this authority is because the .com/.net TLD namespace is owned and operated by Verisign, a US company. Further, the ICANN namespace is owned and operated by ICANN, a US company who, in fact, is also under the jurisdiction of attorney generals of California state [1]. As long as the namespace remains under the control of a centralized authority like the US, this…
Yeah, which seems ridiculous. As a first step, ICANN should be changed to some kind of international non-profit (I'm not even sure how you do that - do you just register it in Switzerland?).
Since they are not under a country code TLD, I think it really makes sense migrate .com, .net and .org to be 'international' TLDs (I think many people internationality basically already consider them to effectively be so) and US companies should be able to access equivalents under the ccTLD like .com.us, .net.us etc. if they wanted a US-specific one, just like every other country does. Then also, I really think all .gov, .mil and .edu and the other US-only TLDs should be phased out (they could just become redirects to .gov.us, .mil.us etc.). Having those TLDs as US-only just smacks of American exceptionalism - I understand the history and it made sense at the time, but became inappropriate as all the other ccTLDs started becoming used. They should have migrated to .us domains back then and deprecated .mil, .gov and so on.
It would be a bit messy, since .us is already delegated and there are already heaps of domains in that namespace which would have to be either retained as legacy or migrated after some time. So really the sooner the better! The US Government would probably have to buy the .us ccTLD back, create ones like com.us, net.us, org.us under it and then re-delegate them while operating .mil.us, .gov.us, .edu.us themselves.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#37Earlier quoted context omitted.
Those servers are only necessary for the ICANN tlds and those will continue to act as they do today, even in a Handshake future. With Handshake, you run your own authoritative server (or use a hosted one) for your own name and that authoritative server's information will be obtainable on chain. No middle-man, no rent seeking.
I understand how handshake works. What I'm saying is that getting my mom to point her DNS servers at an alternate server is a non-starter. You have to get the root servers on board to carry all TLDs or most people will never find them.
But then the root servers can still be used to censor domains by removing them.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#38Earlier quoted context omitted.
The only way an alternate TLD registrar will ever take off is if you get the people who own the current root servers on board. And the only way that will happen is if you figure out how they can make money from owning and operating the root servers. My guess is that if you create a blockchain for registering DNS, and only the current registrars can issue coins on said blockchain, you might have a solution they would…
Is it the root servers that you need to get on board, or the publishers of the publications that most people use, or the operating system publishers? For instance, if the browser makers all started resolving certain TLDs via an alternate network, then people could start publishing websites using domains managed by that network without needing to engage with the root DNS servers at all.
It would be a start, but not all of the internet is accessed through a browser. And I'm not sure you'd get Apple and Google on board unless there was a way for them to make money from it.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#39Earlier quoted context omitted.
I understand how handshake works. What I'm saying is that getting my mom to point her DNS servers at an alternate server is a non-starter. You have to get the root servers on board to carry all TLDs or most people will never find them.
But then the root servers can still be used to censor domains by removing them.
They aren't all in the US. Right now they remove a .com by telling Verisign, a US company, to change the registration for the .com. Since Verisign is the only way to change a .com, it works.
Many root servers operate outside of the US. If the blockchain were the authority on IP addresses, then even if they blocked the US roots the others would still have it.
Even today if all the US root servers go off-line every system would find the others and use them.
Re: US claims jurisdiction over all .com/.net sites even if outside the US (2011)
#40In more recent news, this tech https://handshake.org/ is aimed at this kind of jurisdictional issue. Limiting the reach of a US court or any other central org for that matter at shutting down a domain .com, .net or other.
>> github developers with over 15 followers on February 2019
...I am wondering if it must also be a javascript project...